Interstate Engineering

INTERSTATE ENGINEERING Interstate Engineering, a Division of A-T-O, Inc. and Aluminum Workers International Union, AFL- CIO and Employee Communications Board, Party in Interest. Interstate Engineering, a Division of A-T-O, Inc. and Aluminum Workers International Union, AFL- CIO. Cases 21-CA-14354, 21-CA-14380, and 21-RC-14456 June 8, 1977 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND MURPHY On December 21, 1976, Administrative Law Judge George Christensen issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief and a brief in answer to Respondent's exceptions. 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, find- ings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.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, as modified below, and hereby orders that the Respon- dent, Interstate Engineering, a Division of A-T-O, Inc., Anaheim, California, its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, as so modified: 1. Insert the following as paragraph l(d): "(d) In any other manner interfering with, restrain- ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor organiza- tions, to join or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively with representatives of their own choos- ing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities." 2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the Administrative Law Judge. 230 NLRB No. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held on January 20, 1976, in Case 21-RC-14456 be, and it hereby is, set aside, and said case is hereby remanded to the Regional Director for Region 21 for purposes of conducting a new election. [Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot- note omitted from publication.] ' Respondent and the General Counsel have excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces u that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. Member Murphy agrees that certain statements in Respondent's letters of December 11, 1975, and January 6 and 16, 1976, to the effect that Respondent would bargain from scratch and resist demands for a union shop, thereby "inevitably" precipitating a strike during which strikers would be replaced and the Company would lose part of its die-shop business, constituted veiled threats of reprisal in violation of Sec. 8(aXI). Since these statements occurred in the context of extensive unlawful conduct, including interrogations, threats of plant closure and loss of jobs and benefits, solicitation of grievances, and promise of benefits, and Respondent's statement that, after the election it would reestablish the disbanded employee committee it had created and dominated prior to the Union's representation petition, Member Murphy believes that there is no merit to Respondent's claim that the above statements were privileged under Sec. 8(c). For the same reasons, she agrees with the finding that Respondent violated Sec. 8(aXl) by the comments of Limacher in his speech of January 19, 1976, concerning the likelihood of closure of the die-cast division or the plant in the event of a strike. 2 The Administrative Law Judge inadvertently omitted providing for a conclusionary eease-and-desist paragraph in his recommended Order and notice to which the General Counsel has taken exception. In view of the seriousness and pervasiveness of the unfair labor practices found to have been committed by Respondent, we deem it proper in order to effectuate the purposes of the Act to amend the recommended Order and notice by adding a broad cease-and-desist provision therein. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT dominate the formation or administration of the Employee Communications Board nor contribute unlawful support or assis- tance to it. WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees con- cerning their or other employees' membership in the Aluminum Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, or other activities on behalf of that organization or their sentiments concerning that organization (or any other labor organization). WE WILL NOT make statements to our employ- ees which give them the impression we are maintaining a surveillance of their activities on behalf of the above-named or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT directly or by implication threaten our employees with discharge, job loss, plant closure, reduction of benefits, refusal to I DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD bargain with a labor organization duly selected by a majority of our employees within an appropri- ate unit, or any other reprisals to discourage their support of the above-named or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT promise benefits to our employ- ees to encourage them to withdraw or refrain from supporting the above-named or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT solicit grievances or complaints from our employees to discourage their support of the above-named or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively with repre- sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recogni- tion from the Employee Communications Board as the bargaining representative of our employees for the purpose of adjusting our employees' wages, rates of pay, hours, or working. conditions and WE WILL completely disestablish that organi- zation as such representative. INTERSTATE ENGINEERING, A DIVISION OF A-T-O, INC. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE GEORGE CHRISTENSEN, Administrative Law Judge: On June 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, and 15, 1976,1 I conducted a hearing at Santa Ana, California, to try issues raised by the Union's objections to alleged company conduct affecting the election in Case 21-RC-14456 and companion issues raised by a consolidated complaint issued on March 31 on the basis of a charge and an amended charge filed by the Union in Case 21-CA-14354 on February 4 and March 26, respectively, and a charge filed by the Aluminum Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, hereafter called the Union, in Case 21-CA-14380 on February 12. On April 2 the Regional Director for Region 21 issued an order consolidating the issues raised by the election objections and the consolidated complaint for hearing and resolution. The consolidated complaint and the election objections 2 allege that Interstate Enginneering, a Division of A-T-O, I Read 1976 after all further date references omitting the year. 2 The acts alleged to constitute unfair labor practices encompass all the objections to the election other than Objections 4 and 8. Inasmuch as no Inc., hereafter called the Company, violated Section 8(a)(Xl1), (2), and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,3 and prevented a fair election. The complaint and objections alleged the Company violated Section 8(aX 1) and (3) of the Act by discharging Samuel Rodriguez for engaging in protected concerted activities; violated Section 8(aXl) and (2) of the Act by disbanding an employee-elected grievance-bargaining committee and forming, dominating, and dealing with an organization of its employees called the Employee Communication Board4 in its stead; and violated Section 8(aXl) of the Act by interrogating its employees concerning union activities, by making statements which gave its employees the impres- sion the Company was maintaining a surveillance of union activities, by threatening its employees with discharge, job loss, plant closure, reduction of benefits, and other reprisals to discourage employee union activity, by promising benefits to employees to encourage employees to refrain from supporting the Union, by stating the Union's organizational campaign prevented the grant of wage increases, by distributing forms and instructions to em- ployees for revoking their signatures to union authorization cards and offering to assist employees in accomplishing such revocation, by stating the Company would never recognize or bargain with the Union, and by soliciting grievances from employees to discourage employee support of the Union. In its answer, the Company admitted at times material Robert Limacher was its president, William Davis was its vice president for industrial relations, Sherine East was its personnel manager, Darryl Roth was its production manager, Charles Jaime was its director of manufacturing die-cast products, Eugene Davis was its die-cast superin- tendent, Jack Reynolds was its foreman, Ed Ploschek was its foreman, Gary Ashby was its printshop manager, and all the foregoing were supervisors and agents of the Company acting on its behalf. The Company in its answer also admitted at times pertinent Jeanette Grabathy was a leadwoman but denied she at any time was a supervisor or agent of the Company acting on its behalf. The Company also admitted in its answer it discharged Rodriguez, but denied it discharged Rodriguez for engaging in union activities. The Company also denied the ECB was a labor organization within the meaning of the Act; denied it disbanded an employee-elected grievance-bargaining com- mittee and formed and dominated the ECB as its successor. Lastly, the Company denied any of its supervi- sors or agents committed the acts attributed to them in the complaint as unfair labor practices and elections miscon- duct. The Company on the basis of the foregoing requested the complaint and election objections be dismissed. The issues before me for resolution are: i. Whether the Company disbanded an employee- elected grievance-bargaining committee and formed and dominated the ECB as its successor and thereby violated evidence was produced at the hearing in support of either of those objections, I recommend they be dismissed. 3 Hereafter called the Act. 4 Hereafter called the ECB. 2 INTERSTATE ENGINEERING Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act and prevented a fair election. 5 2. Whether the Company discharged Rodriguez for engaging in protected union activities and thereby violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act and prevented a fair election. 3. Whether Grabathy was a supervisor or agent of the Company acting on its behalf at times pertinent. 6 4. Whether E. Davis, Roth, Jaime, Limacher, Rey- nolds, Ploschek, East, and Ashby committed the acts attributed to them in the consolidated complaint and, if so, whether by such acts the Company violated Section 8(aX1) of the Act and prevented a fair election. The parties appeared by counsel at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to produce evidence, examine and cross-examine witnesses, argue, and file briefs. Briefs have been received from the General Counsel and the Company. Based upon my review of the entire record, observation of the witnesses, perusal of the briefs, and research, I enter the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. URISDICTION AND LABOR ORGANIZATION The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find at times material the Company was a corporation engaged in the manufacture of fire alarms, vacuum cleaners, and job shop die castings at a facility located in Anaheim, California, that it annually sold and shipped products valued in excess of $50,000 to customers located outside of California, and that it was an employer engaged in commerce in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find at all times material the Union was a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND ELECTION MISCONDUCT A. The Alleged Company Disbanding of the Employee-Elected Grievance-Bargaining Committee and Creation and Domination of the ECB as its Successor The employees' organizational activities began with the meeting of a small number of the Company's employees near the plant on Saturday, November 8, 1975. The employees discussed their wage scales, fringe benefits, and working conditions and reached general agreement that improvements were warranted; they formed a committee of six of their numbers to formulate proposals for improvements therein and present them to management; they also decided to call a meeting of all the employees on the following Monday (November 10, 1975). 5 A subsidiary issue is whether the ECB was a "labor organization" within the meaning of the Act. 6 If so, another issue is whether Grabathy committed the acts attributed to her in the complaint and, if so, whether such acts violated Sec. 8(aXI) of the Act and prevented a fair election. Approximately 75 employees9 attended the November 10 meeting. Hare acted as chairman. He reported the issues discussed at the previous meeting, the designation of the six employees to formulate proposals for improvements in wages, fringe benefits, etc., for presentation to management and asked those in attendance to authorize the six to act on their behalf in preparing and presenting the proposals to management. All 75 signed such authorization. The committee met to formulate their proposals a few days later. Not completing the proposals, they agreed to meet at Saville's home the following Sunday, November 16, 1975. At the November 16, 1975, meeting, attended by all six committee members plus an alternate (Evelyn Brooks), they formulated 11 proposals and put them in written form. Their 11 proposals were: (1) abolish the merit wage system presently in effect and establish rate ranges for each job classification; (2) establish rates for each job classification comparable with wages paid by the industry within the area, with an anticipated increase of approximately 90 cents per hour; (3) increase company contributions to the pension plan by 12 cents per hour and company contribu- tions to the health and welfare plan by 12 cents per hour, with consequent upgrading of benefits; (4) establish Washington's Birthday as an additional paid holiday; (5) establish a program for payment of cost-of-living increases commensurate with changes in the cost-of-living index; (6) establish a seniority system; (7) establish a procedure for processing grievances between the committee and manage- ment; (8) establish 5 days of paid sick leave per year; (9) establish lead classifications with specified rates; (10) provide for commensurate revisions in production quotas with each change in product or process or method of manufacture; and (11) embody the employees' rates of pay, job classifications, fringe benefits, and working conditions in a written contract executed by the Company and the committee. The committee called a general employee meeting the next day (Monday, November 17, 1975) to notify the employees of the proposals and discuss them before they were presented to the Company. The proposals were read and discussed at the meeting. No changes were made. On Tuesday, November 18, 1975, Hare approached his supervisor, Russell Gray, and informed Gray of the employee actions and the proposals. He asked Gray to arrange a meeting between the employee committee and management. Gray arranged a meeting that afternoon. The meeting was attended by the following company represen- tatives: Robert Limacher, president; David Martin, vice president/comptroller; Charles Jaime, director of manu- facturing, die-cast products; Darryl Roth, production manager; and Sherine East, personnel manager. The six elected committee members attended as representatives of the employees. Hare, as chairman of the employee committee, advised Limacher of the employees' meetings and actions, the election of the committee, the draft of proposals for improvements in rates of pay, fringe benefits, etc., and presented Limacher with a written document T Twenty employees attended the meeting. There were 109 employees eligible to vote in the January 20 election. I Arnold Hare, Eva Semendinger, Dora Moore, Mary Campos. Ken Suleski, and Pat Saville. 9 A majority within the unit. 3 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD setting forth the 11 proposals. Limacher stated he would study the proposals, confer with the parent company (A- T-O), and give the Company's answer to the committee's proposals thereafter. On December i, 1975, Limacher prepared a letter to all employees stating he was creating an organization called the "Employee Communications Board" (ECB); that he would select an employee from each department to serve on the ECB; that the ECB would meet twice per month on company time10 and he would act as chairman; that the ECB would discuss, inter alia, employee relations and employee suggestions; and that a summary of each meeting would be posted on all bulletin boards. On the date his December I letter was generally distributed (December 3, 1975), Limacher summoned Hare and stated the Company had not in the past and would not now recognize any employee-elected committee, that he was going to appoint employees to the ECB, and that he would communicate the Company's answers to the proposals submitted to him on November 18 to the ECB. On the same date, Limacher selected four of the six employee-elected committeemen as members (Hare, Semendinger, Campos, and Suleski) plus five other employees (Genevieve Codol, Ponciana De La Rosa, McKinley Lynch, Daniel Solorio, and Gualberto Vizcarra) and announced the first meeting of the ECB would be held at 2:15 p.m. on Friday, December 5, 1975. The ECB met as scheduled. Limacher and his appointees were present. Limacher stated the first business was the Company's answers to the Ii proposals submitted to the Company by the employee-elected committee on Novem- ber 18. He then stated the following were the Company's answers: (1) the Company already had rate ranges for each job classification; (2) the present wage rates for each classification equalled or exceeded those prevailing within the industry in the area; (3) the pension and health and welfare plans would be reviewed; (4) the Company presently had a sufficient number of paid holidays, nine, with two floating holidays (at the same time announcing the first floating holiday for 1976 was to be January 2, 1976, with the second to be announced later); (5) cost-of- living adjustments were not warranted since advances in the cost of living were taken into account in annual wage reviews and adjustments; (6) present seniority policies were adequate; (7) any valid grievances would be processed between the aggrieved employee and the Company; (8) no response; (9) the Company established lead classifications as required and paid an additional 15 cents to leads; (10) production quotas were reasonable and would be reviewed in early 1976; and (II1) the Company would not recognize any employee-elected committee and there was no need for same. Limacher stated the Company's sales declined in 1975 and the Hadco division was being closed down with the remaining work of that division transferred to another A-T-O division. 10 For which its members would receive compensation at their regular rate of pay. " He had scheduled a second meeting of the ECB for 2 weeks after the December 5, 1975, meeting. 12 A third meeting was held on May 25. 13 Semendinger testified without contradiction that Limacher solicited employee complaints or grievances at each meeting; that she complained Following this meeting, a sufficient number of employees contacted the Union and executed authorization cards to warrant the December 9, 1975, filing by the Union of the petition for certification in Case 21-RC-14456. On December 17, 1975, Limacher addressed a letter to the employees stating he would not call any further meetings of the ECB l pending resolution of the question concerning representation raised by the Union's December 9, 1975, petition for certification. On January 20 an election pursuant to the petition was held. Of 109 eligible voters, 102 cast ballots. Forty-three voted for union representation and 58 voted against union representation. One ballot was challenged. On April 15 Limacher called the second meeting of the ECB for April 28. Nine members (other than Limacher) attended the meeting. Two of the original appointees (Hare and Suleski) were replaced by Kenneth Avery and Thomas Rogers. The committee thus contained only two of the original six employee-elected committeemen. At the April meeting and subsequent meetings,12 the ECB discussed employee grievances or complaints,' 3 improvements in sales, suggestions for improving production, future produc- tion plans, etc. It is clear from the foregoing the Company, by Limacher, refused to recognize and bargain with an employee committee elected by a majority of its unit employees for that purpose and instead created the ECB with a majority of appointees other than those elected by its unit employ- ees. It is further clear Limacher not only selected the membership of the ECB, he scheduled when and where the ECB met, he paid its members for time spent in atten- dance, he controlled the agenda, he dominated the discussions, and he dictated the reports of the ECB's activities to the employees. It is also evident Limacher brought the Company's answers to the employee-elected committee's proposals for improvements in rates of pay, wages, fringe benefits and working conditions, and employee complaints or grievanc- es before the ECB, discussed and reported them. The Board has held an organization which functions as the ECB did is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act and that such organization is Company dominated when a management representative selects its members, schedules its meetings, pays its members for attending, controls the subjects discussed, and controls the reports made to employees of its delibera- tions.14 I therefore find and conclude the ECB at times pertinent was a labor organization within the meaning of the Act, that on or about December 3 the Company, by Limacher, refused to meet and bargain with an employee-elected grievance and bargaining committee but rather established, dominated, and utilized the ECB for the purpose of discussing employee wages, fringe benefits, working condi- tions, and employee complaints in its stead, thereby over her and her co-workers' working conditions (lack of fans [ventilation 1, and excessive noise from a tumbler which was to be moved but had not been, etc.) at the meetings and Limacher stated he would look into and attempt to rectify the complaints, and the others voiced similar complaints and received similar assurances. Her testimony is credited. " Hertzka and Knowles, 206 NLRB 191 (1973). 4 INTERSTATE ENGINEERING violating Section 8(aXl) and (2) of the Act. I further find by supplanting the employee-elected grievance-bargaining committee with the ECB and attempting to use it as a vehicle for resolving employee complaints over fringe benefits, wages, and working conditions, the Company interfered with and prevented a free and fair election. B. The Alleged Independent Violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and Related Interference With a Fair Election 1. The Die-cast building or division The Company's die-cast operations are conducted in a separate building from its other manufacturing activities. At all times pertinent Charles Jaime was in charge of die- cast operations; Eugene Davis was superintendent; Ed- ward Ploschek was day foreman; and Jack Reynolds was night foreman. It is alleged in the complaint the Company, by Jaime and Davis, violated Section 8(aXl) of the Act and interfered with the election by interrogating employees concerning their and other employees' union membership, activities, and sympathies, by making statements to employees which gave the impression the Company was maintaining a surveillance of their union activities, and by threatening employees with discharge and other reprisals to discourage their support of the Union. The complaint alleges the Company also violated Section 8(aXl) of the Act and affected the election by Jaime's solicitation of grievances from employees to discourage their supporting the Union, and by Davis' promise of benefits to employees to encourage them to withdraw or refrain from supporting the Union, his statement that the union organizing drive prevented the Company from granting normal wage increases, and his threatening employees with reprisals because they engaged in union activities. The complaint alleges that the Company also violated Section 8(aX)(l) of the Act and prejudiced the election by Ploschek's statements to employees which gave them the impression the Company was maintaining a surveillance of their union activities and Reynolds' threats of plant closure, job loss, and company refusal to bargain in the event the employees elected the Union as their bargaining representative. Company President Limacher chaired a meeting of management personnel in mid-December 1975 at which it was decided certain supervisors'5 would conduct inter- views among employees to sell the Company and counter the union campaign. Jaime and Davis met separately and decided to conduct interviews of all the die-cast employees during the week commencing Monday, January 6, 1976. It was decided that Davis would interview Spanish-speaking employees' 6 (Davis was fluent in Spanish and Jaime did not speak the language). Since Jaime was heavily occupied during that week, Davis interviewed both the Spanish- speaking employees and some of those who only spoke 15 Jaime, Davis, and Roth. 's About two-thirds of the die-cast employees were Spanish-speaking. '1 In response to their statements the Union told them they would keep English. Davis interviewed approximately 25 employees and Jaime interviewed 10 employees. a. Charles Jaime Jaime conducted his interviews by calling 10 employees, I at a time, into his office. He followed a standard format: he first asked each employee whether he was happy in his job; he then asked if the employee had any complaints or recommendations for improvements in the Company's operations (noting any complaints or suggestions on a pad and promising to investigate and rectify same); he next inquired whether the employee was aware of the Compa- ny's wage scales, fringe benefits, and working conditions, referring to a company booklet setting forth their details (going into details when the employee was unfamiliar with these matters); he next discussed the union literature, stating his views concerning alleged misstatements, exag- gerations, etc., therein and the disadvantages of union representation; he then described the past history of the die-cast operations (stating die case had progressed from eight employees in 1970 to its current size of the work force, its transformation from a captive to a job shop, etc.); he pointed out the dies utilized in the die shop were owned by the Company's customers and stated, in the event there was a strike, the customers would undoubtedly pull out their dies and there would be no work for anyone; he told the employees 17 if the Union came in they could end up with less in wages and benefits than they had, since all current benefits would have to be agreed to by the Company in negotiations with the Union; and he closed each conversation by asking what advantages the employee expected to gain by union representation, giving his arguments against whatever gain the employee expressed. Following the 10 interviews, Jaime took action to remedy the employee complaints. The various employees com- plained that there were not enough tables and suggested the patio be roofed over because it was too hot to eat in during the summer; that hospitals would not admit them or their dependents under the existing hospital plan; that their job standards (one employee) were incorrectly set (too high) and an overhead fan was too noisy; that they had to wait too long for materials; that someone be hired to back up another employee (Semendinger) on the drill press instead of her; that procedures for setting of the machine should be improved; that there was inadequate arm protection (the employee was a furnace tender); and that several machines were too old and should be replaced.'8 Employees Penny Ledferd, Harold Blossom, and Cora Murie corroborated Jaime's testimony (and report) con- cerning his statements that their interviews were separately and individually conducted in Jamie's office; that he followed the general format described above; that they at his solicitation complained regarding production stan- dards, a noisy fan, inadequate lunch facilities, waiting too long for materials, Semendinger's back-up situation, and inability to secure hospital admissions and that Jaime promised to investigate the complaints and rectify them. Murie and Ledferd also confirmed Jaime's testimony (and their present wage levels and fringe benefits and the Union would improve them in negotiations after it won the election. 18 Jaime confirmed the above in a written report to Limacher. 5 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD report) that he told them the die shop's most important customers owned the dies which were utilized in the shop and stated, if the Company became involved in a dispute with the Union, those customers would probably remove their dies and the die shop would not have any work or jobs as in 1970 before, by his efforts, he made the die shop over from a captive shop to a job shop with consequent expansion of its workload and jobs. Jaime also asked Ledferd if she was ever affiliated with a union and, when she expressed the fact she was familiar with unions, proceeded to attack the union literature as ridiculous and characterized any employee who believed it as ignorant; when she responded to his inquiry concerning what she expected to gain by union representation by stating a union provided job security, he asked her how it provided such security, she responded the Union could protect an employee against arbitrary discharge (citing a discharge in the department she believed unwarranted), upon which Jaime proceeded to argue that the discharge was for poor work (with which she disagreed), after which he ended the conversation by saying a union could not provide job security. In addition to corroborating Jaime's testimony as noted heretofore, Blossom testified Jaime asked him how he felt about the Union and, when he responded he didn't particularly care for unions but they were sometimes necessary, Jaime stated if the Union gets in, it will call a strike and the employees could well wind up with lower wages and fringe benefits because bargaining would start with a blank piece of paper and Jaime couldn't understand why any employee wanted a union since the Company's wage scales were higher than its competitors in the area. Blossom also stated that Jaime said while the Union was saying the Company could not close or move its plant while an organizational campaign was underway, it could so close and move its plant, that the Union's statement was like saying he could not move from his present home to another. Blossom further testified Jaime also told him he knew Blossom attended several union meetings, he knew everyone else on the night shift attended except for two or three and asked Blossom why he attended, to which Blossom rejoined by asking Jaime if he would attend himself if he were offered free beer and pizza; Blossom also testified Jaime asked him what was said at the union meetings and asked him to secure copies of the union literature for him. Blossom was a convincing witness and Jaime in essence corroborated a good portion of his testimony; Blossom's testimony is credited. It is clear from the mutually corroboratory testimony of Jaime and the three employees that Jaime solicited employee grievances and sought to rectify them in order to reduce their dissatisfaction with the Company and thereby have less reason for seeking and securing union representa- tion to resolve them.19 Jaime and the employees also gave mutually corrobora- tive testimony that Jaime asked them what they expected to gain by union representation and argued against 19 Jaime testified the main reason he and Davis held the interviews was to find out what the employees were unhappy about and caused them to seek union representation. whatever reasons they advanced for desiring union repre- sentation. Mutually corroboratory testimony also establishes that Jaime intimated the Company would bargain from zero with the Union and if the Union struck the Company to preserve or improve current wages and benefits the dies would be removed from the die-cast division and all die- cast employees would lose their jobs. While Jaime categorically denied Blossom's and Led- ferd's testimony that Jaime told them he knew about the various meetings of the Union and, in Blossom's case, who attended, thereby giving those employees the impression the Company was maintaining a surveillance of such meetings, I have credited Blossom's and Ledferd's testimo- ny and find Jaime made the statements in question, as well as asking Blossom what transpired at the union meetings. On the basis of the foregoing, I find and conclude on January 6 the Company by Jaime interrogated employees concerning their and other employees' union membership, activities, and sympathies, made statements to employees which gave them the impression the Company was maintaining a surveillance of their and other employees' union activities, threatened employees with loss of jobs and benefits, and solicited grievances from employees to discourage their supporting the Union, thereby violating Section 8(aX)() of the Act and interfering with the employees' freedom of choice in the January 20 election. b. Eugene Davis Davis followed a format similar to that employed by Jaime in the interviews he conducted; he informed the approximately 25 employees he interviewed the union election was coming up on January 20; he asked them how they liked their jobs; he explained the Company's wages and fringe benefits and working conditions as set forth in the company booklet; he asked them whether they had any complaints or suggestions for improvements in the Compa- ny's programs or policies; he discussed the Union's literature and expressed his views concerning it; and he asked them whether they had any questions concerning the election. Davis' testimony was undisputed that none of the employees had any complaints or suggestions (he testified without contradiction the pad of paper he had for recording any complaints remained blank). Four employees of the die-cast division testified concern- ing alleged statements made by Davis which formed the basis for the complaint allegations and objection elections relating to Davis: Eva Semendinger, Judith Azzopardi, Clifton Hill, and Samuel Rodriguez (the alleged discrimi- natory dischargee in this case). Neither Semendinger nor Azzopardi testified to any interview by Davis during the week of January 6 and Davis stated categorically he conducted no interview with Azzopardi.20 Davis testified unhesitatingly he did conduct such an interview during the week of January 6 with Rodriguez and Hill.21 Hill did not testify to the contents of any interview with Davis during the week of January 6. Hill testified unequivocally that on December 2, 1975, he was called to 20 The record does not disclose whether Jaime conducted an interview with Semendinger. 21 His testimony is credited. 6 INTERSTATE ENGINEERING Davis' office during Davis' absence to discuss his wage raise with Sherine East, the Company's personnel director; that after he and East concluded their conversation and he was about to leave, Davis entered the office and asked him to stay; that Davis then said the Company some 5 years previous moved its fire alarm manufacturing operations and die-cast operations from Puerto Rico to the plant, that it could conduct those operations cheaper in Puerto Rico, that it was contemplating moving those operations back to Puerto Rico, and that the employees would be wise to desist from seeking any union representation at this time. Hill also testified Davis mentioned a plan to establish a new incentive program based on seniority (Hill had just completed approximately I year's service with the Compa- ny) and that Hill appeared eligible to move from his breaker classification to a die-cast operator classification. Davis testified the alleged December 2, 1975, exchange never took place; he testified it was highly unlikely it would occur, inasmuch as he did not learn of the union organizing campaign until December 9, 1975. While it is true self-organizational activities commenced among the employees in November, the record indicates the employees did not seek representation by the Union until after Limacher's December 3, 1975, announcement that the Company was not going to recognize the employee-elected committee (it appears the first union card-signing activity occurred on December 4, 1975). Davis' testimony and demeanor was forthright and convincing and I credit his testimony his only contact with Hill and any discussion concerning union activity, etc., occurred during the week of January 6 and that in the course of the January 6 interview with Hill, he did not voice the statements attributed to him by Hill. On the basis of the foregoing, I shall recommend those portions of the complaint alleging the Company violated Section 8(a)(1) and interfered with the election by state- ments attributed to Davis by Hill be dismissed. Rodriguez testified to three conversations with Davis. He testified when he received his first paycheck (he was hired on December 1, 1975), he noted he was paid at a rate of $2.90 per hour; he then sought out Davis and complained, stating Davis promised him $3.25 an hour; that Davis replied he was not entitled to a $3.25 rate because he was a trainee; that Rodriguez stated he was not a trainee but an experienced die-cast operator; that Davis stated he nev- ertheless was hired as a trainee. Rodriguez testified Davis then said a union was trying to get into the plant; that he asked Davis what the Union had to do with his rate of pay; and that Davis closed the conversation by telling him to be patient, when the Union was out of the picture, he would receive the rates promised to him.22 Rodriguez testified he had a second conversation with Davis approximately 3 days before the election (the election took place on Tuesday, January 20); that Davis told him the union election was coming up; that he wanted Rodriguez to vote against the Union; that the president of the Company had run the plant for 35 years and was not going to let the Union come in and run it for him; that the 22 Rodriguez testified Davis hired him at a starting rate of $3.25 as a die- cast operator with a promised increase to $3.60 after 30 days and to S3.85 after 60 days: he later testified differently, that he was promised a 50-cent increase within 60 days after his hire. company president would close the plant down first and all the employees would lose their jobs; and that Rodriguez was a trainee in his probationary period and could be fired at any time. Rodriguez further testified Davis then asked him how he was going to vote, to which he replied he was going to stay neutral, since he was new and didn't know what was going on. Rodriguez testified he had a third conversation with Davis the day of the election; that Davis asked him if he had made up his mind about the Union; that he replied he didn't want to lose his job and was not going to vote; that Davis stated after the Union lost the election there would be better holidays and benefits and that the Union was going to be very unhappy at the loss, since it spent a lot of money on beer and pizza at the union meetings. Davis testified he interviewed Rodriguez on Friday, November 28, 1975, and hired him as a trainee because he lacked experience as a die-cast operator during the previous 3 years; 23 that he told Rodriguez if his work was satisfactory, at the end of his 90-day probationary period he would be considered for reclassification to die-cast operator; that he at no time discussed Rodriguez' starting rate or any rate increases; and that the first conversation related by Rodriguez above never occurred. Insofar as the second conversation is concerned, Davis testified the only conversation he had with Rodriguez concerning the forthcoming union election occurred during the week of January 6; that he followed the format set forth above and that he did not say he wanted Rodriguez to vote against the Union; that he did not ask Rodriguez how he was going to vote; and that he did not say the plant would be closed if the Union came in. Davis denied he had a conversation at all with Rodriguez on the day the voting occurred (January 20). I credit Davis' denial that the first conversation occurred. Documentary evidence establishes both Rodriguez and Sherine East, the Company's personnel director, signed a hiring form which clearly stated Rodriguez' classification was that of trainee and his starting rate was $2.90 per hour. Rodriguez' testimony concerning this first alleged conver- sation with Davis was both hesitating and contradictory, while Davis' testimony was clear and forthright. Insofar as the second conversation is concerned, I find Rodriguez was confused as to dates and the second alleged conversation, which he related occurred not on January 17, but in the week of January 6, and was conducted along the general lines of the format established by Jaime and Davis. I find, however, not only did Davis conduct the interview along the lines of the standard format, he also stated he wanted Rodriguez to vote against the Union; told Rodri- guez the president of the Company would close the plant down and all the employees would lose their jobs if the Union came in; asked Rodriguez how he was going to vote; and warned Rodriguez he was a trainee in his probationary period and could be fired at any time. The general tenure and purpose of the Jaime-Davis interviews during the week of January 6 were to ascertain the extent of union support among the employees and 23 Rodriguez' application disclosed he last worked as a die-cast operator over 3 years previous to the date of his application. 7 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD weaken that support by attempting to resolve any grievanc- es among the employees and to persuade the employees to refrain from or cease their support of the Union. While both Jaime and Davis testified they were instructed to refrain from any arm-twisting and delving into employees' union memberships, sympathies, and desires, I find they exceeded those instructions in their zeal to avoid a union victory in the forthcoming election. Rodriguez in this portion of his testimony was convincing and is credited. On the same grounds, I credit Rodriguez' testimony concerning the third conversation on the day of the election and find on January 20 Davis asked Rodriguez if he had made up his mind about the Union and, after receiving Rodriguez' assurance he didn't want to lose his job and, therefore, was not going to vote, stated after the Union lost the election there would be better holidays and benefits and the Union was going to be unhappy over the loss, since it spent a lot of money on beer and pizza at union meetings. On the basis of the foregoing, I find that on or about January 6, and on January 20, by Davis' interrogation of Rodriguez on how he was going to vote in the union election, his threat the Company would close down the plant if the Union were to win, and his promise there would be better holidays and benefits if the Union lost, the Company violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act and interfered with employee rights to cast a free and uncoerced ballot in the January 20 election. Azzopardi testified approximately a week before the election she was standing in front of a bulletin board reading the notice of election when Davis approached her and told her to vote "no" in the election, if the Union got in the employees would lose benefits, and if the Union got in it would probably cause a strike. She testified she disagreed with Davis' prediction of a strike and told Davis she didn't like the Company's increase in production quotas, that Davis replied they had not been raised, that she disagreed with him, and that the conversation closed by Davis' stating she was doing good work and if she made quota would receive her regular scheduled increase at her next performance review. Davis confirmed the conversation took place under the circumstances related by Azzopardi. He stated he ap- proached Azzopardi at the bulletin board because she was there during working hours and asked her what she was doing there instead of working, that she replied she was there to read the notice; that she asked him what he thought of her job performance; 24 that he replied he thought her work was satisfactory; that she stated the die- cast foreman, Ed Ploschek, told her that her work would have to improve; and that he ended the conversation by saying he thought her work was O.K. but he would review and discuss it with her at greater length when he had the records before him at her next performance evaluation. Davis denied he instructed her to vote "no" at the union election, stated the employees would lose benefits if the Union got in, and stated the Union would cause a strike if it got in. 24 Azzopardi had been off work for a period of time and only recently returned to work. I credit Azzopardi's testimony. While she had some difficulty communicating due to a limited ability to speak and comprehend English, her demeanor was sincere and worthy of credit. I therefore find and conclude during the week of January 12, by Davis' instructing Azzopardi to vote "no" in the union election and threatening a loss of benefits if the Union won the election, the Company violated Section 8(aX)() of the Act and interfered with employee freedom of choice in the election. Semendinger testified she was called to Davis' office in mid-December; that he told her since she was the oldest employee in the die-cast division, he would like her viewpoint on the Union; that she replied she was going to listen to both sides and make her own decision; that Davis stated the Company could not go further than it had already in pay raises and other improvements; that she stated if Limacher (the company president) had conducted one more meeting with the original employee-elected committee the Union would not be at the Company's door; that Davis asked her how other employees felt; that she stated she didn't know how some of them felt, since they were Spanish-speaking and she only spoke English; that Davis stated $3 was a good starting rate and while the Company had been late in granting raises, the employees should give it a chance, since if the Union got in the Company's attitude would change; that he worked in union plants before and wouldn't want to work in another one; and that the Company would be making some improvements after January 1. Semendinger stated she had a second conversation with Davis on the day before the election (January 19) at her workplace; that Davis asked her how she thought the election would go; that she asked him how he thought it was going to go; that he stated it was going to go 60 percent for the Company and 40 percent for the Union; that he stated he asked Danny Solorio why he was voting for the Union and Solorio replied he was voting for the Union because he was running a die-cast machine but was not classified as a die-cast operator; that he asked Solorio if he had any other reasons and Solorio said he was also voting for the Union because a majority of the employees he knew were voting for the Union and he told Solorio his second reason was more stupid than his first; that Davis stated that while there were stories floating around the plant the Company could not move it in the face of the union election campaign, the Company could move the plant if it so desired; that she asked Davis if she told him she was not going to vote for the Union and the Union did not get in, what would happen to the committee; 25 that Davis replied nothing would happen to the committee and if the employees would wait the year out and see if Limacher came through with all he said he would, they could then get the Union in if they were not satisfied. Semendinger testified to a third conversation with Davis just before the Christmas holiday in 1975 wherein she complained to Davis the employees in the assembly building were having a Christmas party and the die-cast employees were not; that Davis replied when there were 25 Semendinger was elected to the original employee committee. 8 INTERSTATE ENGINEERING two divisions, one was always treated worse than the other and the die-cast division was the less favored division; that she then asked why the die-cast division didn't receive an hour for lunch since the assembly employees in the other building did; that Davis left, returned, and said that he spoke to East who said it was too late to permit the die-cast employees to join the Christmas party at the other building but the die-cast employees could take an hour for lunch and that the next year, if the Union did not get in, the Company would do better. Davis corroborated Semendinger's testimony that he called her to his office in mid-December to solicit her views regarding the percentage of employees involved in the union organizational drive; that Semendinger stated the Union had its pros and cons and told him she knew how some of the employees felt, but not the Spanish-speaking employees. Davis also corroborated Semendinger's testi- mony she had a second conversation with him on January 19 and that in the course of that conversation he commented the stories going around the plant the Compa- ny could not move it were incorrect, that he had been involved in a move of another plant from Los Angeles to Alabama overnight and the Company could move the plant if it wanted to. Davis neither confirmed nor denied Semendinger's testimony that in late December he stated the Company was going to make improvements after January I if the Union did not get in or her testimony that on January 19 he related the conversation with Solorio set out heretofore. I credit Semendinger's testimony. She was a forthright and convincing witness and her testimony for the most part was either corroborated by Davis or not contradicted. On the basis of the foregoing, I find and conclude the Company in mid-December 1975, on approximately December 24, 1975, and on January 19, by Davis' statements to Semendinger wherein he interrogated her concerning her union views and her knowledge of the union views of other employees, by his admission he interrogated employee Solorio concerning his union views, by his implied promise in mid-December and December 24 conversations of improvements after January I in the event the Union did not succeed in the election, the Company violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act and interfered with employee exercise of a free choice in the election. c. Edward Ploschek The complaint alleges the die shop foreman, Edward Ploschek, violated Section 8(aX)(1) of the Act and interfered with the election by a January 9 statement to employee Arnold Hare which gave him the impression the Company was maintaining a surveillance of the employees' union activities and by a January threat to Rodriguez of loss of a previously announced wage increase and other reprisals to discourage him from joining or assisting the Union. Hare testified on or about December 9, 1975, that Ploschek asked him if he could come to the union meeting scheduled that night and he replied in the affirmative. Ploschek conceded he might have asked the question in 26 The Union was distributing leaflets at the plant to all who went in, including the supervisors, which set forth that free beer and pizza would be view of the free beer and pizza the Union was advertising at its meetings.2 Rodriguez testified about 2 weeks after his hire (i.e., about December 15, 1975) Ploschek approached him at his work place and asked him if he heard about union efforts to organize the plant; that he replied in the affirmative and asked Ploschek what the Union's chances were; that Ploschek stated a union had tried to organize the plant before, failed, would fail again, and that, if the Union did get in, everyone would have to work extra hard. Ploschek denied he ever discussed the Union with Rodriguez. In view of the freely circulated information concerning the dates of union meetings and the providing of free beer and pizza, I find Ploschek's inquiry of Hare innocuous and insufficient to support a finding it gave Hare the impres- sion the Company was maintaining a surveillance of the employees' union activities. I therefore shall recommend those portions of the complaint and election objections so alleging be dismissed. With reference to the later allegation, Rodriguez' testimony related to an alleged mid-December 1975 conversation, there was no mention of loss of a previous increase, and the language alleged does not contain any threat. I therefore shall recommend those portions of the complaint relating to alleged January 1976 threats by Ploschek and related union objections be dismissed. d. Jack Reynolds The complaint and related election objections allege that Reynolds in either December 1975 or January 1976 threatened employees with plant closure to discourage their support of the Union and, on February 11, 1976, threat- ened employees with job losses and implied support of the Union would be futile because the Company would avoid recognizing and bargaining with the Union by keeping it involved in litigation for years to discourage their support of the Union. Thomas Hecker, a die-cast operator on the second shift, testified approximately 3 weeks before the election (i.e., on about December 29,1975) he and Reynolds got into a general discussion at his work station; that they discussed the subject of company closure or move of the plant in the event the Union won the election; that Reynolds said he heard the Company might move if the Union won rather than deal with it; that he replied that was "bull," it would cost the Company more to move the machinery and equipment than to stay and deal with the Union; and that Reynolds agreed with him. Employee Joseph Tykodi testified he went on the second shift on February 2, as an inspector; that he lunched several times with Reynolds in February; that Reynolds told him at a management meeting prior to the election the Company's attorney, Nagel, told the supervisors not to worry what they said to employees because he could keep the matter tied up in court for a year; and that on two occasions at management meetings Jaime said he wanted to replace some undesirables. provided at the various union meetings; there was a meeting scheduled for December 9, 1975. 9 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Reynolds testified he met Nagel once in 1974 and had not seen him since till the date of his testimony at this hearing; he stated he had not attended any management meetings prior or subsequent to the current election at which Nagel was present; he corroborated Tykodi's testimony that he lunched with him during the month of February; he stated, however, that after Tykodi told him the Union filed a complaint against the Company over the election and that Nagel was the Company's attorney, he simply commented Nagel would probably keep the matter tied up in court for quite a while. Reynolds stated he told Tykodi on another occasion some of the new employees were not qualified and would have to be replaced and denied he ever told Tykodi he attended a meeting at which Nagel said not to worry what the supervisors said to employees because Nagel would keep the matter tied up in court for a year. I credit Reynolds' testimony concerning the Tykodi conversations and find the Hecker conversation too inconclusive to warrant a finding that Reynolds threatened Hecker with plant closure in the event the Union won the election. I therefore shall recommend those portions of the complaint and election objections alleging the foregoing conduct by Reynolds violated Section 8(aX1) of the Act and interfered with the election be dismissed. 2. The assembly building or division As noted heretofore, the Company's assembly opera- tions 27 are conducted in a separate building from its die- cast operations. At all times pertinent, Darryl Roth was in charge of the assembly division. No superintendent or foreman was employed in the division during times pertinent to this proceeding and there was one leadlady, Jeanette Grabathy. It is alleged in the complaint Roth violated Section 8(aX 1) of the Act and interfered with the election by distributing forms and instructions to employ- ees in December 1975 on how to revoke union authoriza- tion cards and offering to assist employees in revoking such cards; by interrogating employees concerning their and other employees' union membership, activities, and sympa- thies; by making statements to employees which gave them the impression the Company was maintaining a surveil- lance of their union activities; by threatening employees with plant closure and other reprisals to discourage their supporting the Union; and by stating to employees the Company would never recognize or bargain with the Union. The complaint also alleges the Company by Grabathy violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and interfered with the election by the same form distribution and offers of assistance set out above with regard to Roth and by stating to employees the Company would close the plant rather than recognize or bargain with the Union. No evidence was offered in support of the complaint allegation and election objection concerning Roth's alleged distribution of forms and offers of assistance in executing them. Therefore I shall recommend those portions of the complaint and election objections so alleging be dismissed. 27 Fire alarms and vacuum cleaners. 28 While Semendinger was not employed in the assembly building, she at times was in that building and at times Roth was in the die-cast building; since Semendinger is one of the oldest employees of the Company, Roth knew her quite well and had a number of conversations with her. a. Darryl Roth It is undisputed Roth attended the mid-December management meeting at which it was decided supervisors in the two buildings would conduct employee interviews to ascertain the extent of union support among the employees and attempt to weaken such support. Roth did not conduct individual interviews away from the work area, but instead conducted discussions almost continuously over a period dating from the management meeting just noted to the day before the election (January 19) at the employees' work places. Since a large number of employees were engaged in assembly, oftentimes a number of employees working in close proximity to one another participated. Roth followed the same format employed by Jaime and Davis: he advised each employee of the forthcoming election; he asked if employees were familiar with the Company's wages, benefits, and working conditions (referring to the company booklet and explaining any gaps in employee knowledge); he solicited complaints concerning wages, benefits, and working conditions and sought to rectify them; he reviewed the Union's literature and criticized it as well as generally criticizing the Union and questioning the value of union representation; he stated union representation was detrimental to the employees' best interest and his reasons for that position; he asked employees what benefit they expected to receive from union representation and offered counterarguments. Employees Evelyn Brooks, Poinciana De La Rosa, Roxie Nelson, and Eva Semendinger28 testified concerning conversations with Roth in January. Roth confirmed an extended conversation with Brooks in about the second week of January in the assembly area, where they discussed at length the employee-elected committee.29 Roth confirmed that Brooks complained against Limacher's disbanding of the employee-elected grievance and bargaining committee and that he replied to Brooks' complaint by stating the elected committee did not represent all departments while the one appointed by Limacher did. When Brooks replied that the employee committee was elected by a majority of the employees (who signed a document to that effect), Roth replied Limacher would never recognize an employee-elected committee but would shut the doors first. Roth did not dispute Brooks' testimony (which is credited) that he asked her what she thought about the union mess; that he asked her how she thought the election would go; and that he asked her where Arnold Hare30 secured the figures which appeared in the Union's literature. Roth also confirmed he had a conversation on approxi- mately January 15 with De La Rosa in the assembly building and confirmed he asked her if she was going to the union meeting scheduled that evening for the free beer and pizza. Their testimony differed in that De La Rosa testified Roth suggested he and she form a union of which she could be secretary, that they charge dues and then give the money back by giving free pizza at their meetings, and that he stated if the employees did choose the Union, they 29 Brooks was an alternate member of that committee; this was known to Roth. 30 Hare was the chairman of the employee-elected committee. 10 INTERSTATE ENGINEERING would lose their Christmas vacation and rest breaks at the end of each hour. Roth stated he asked De La Rosa if she was going to attend the union meeting, received a negative reply, and ended the conversation by telling her she should go and listen to what the Union had to say and weigh what they offered against what the Company was saying. I credit De La Rosa's testimony; she was a convincing witness and had a clear recollection of the exchange. Roxie Nelson testified about a week before the election, in the course of a conversation in the cafeteria between Roth, Nelson, and three other employees, Roth stated if the Union came in and forced the Company to raise wages and the Company's prices got too high, the Company would not be competitive, the customers would pull out their dies, and the Company would have to close its die shop. Semendinger testified she had two conversations with Roth, one the Thursday before the election and another the Friday before the election. In the first conversation, Roth asked her what the employees' union sentiments were in the die-cast shop and she replied she only knew the sentiments of some of the employees; that Roth made a speech about his 10 years in the Air Force fighting for the country, his belief in freedom, and his opinion the Union would limit freedom. Semendinger testified they engaged in an exchange concerning any negotiations which ensued in the event that the Union won, with her taking the position the employees would retain their existing benefits and bargain over improvements therein and Roth taking the position bargaining would start from zero with the possibility the employees could end up with reduced wages, benefits, and working conditions. Semendinger also testi- fied they got into an exchange over the Company's right to shut down and move the plant in the event the Union won the election with Semendinger taking the position it would be unlawful for the Company to do so and Roth taking the position the Company had a right to do so in the event it believed its operations would be uneconomical. Semendinger testified in the second conversation Roth renewed his request for information concerning the extent of union support in the die shop, renewed their discussion of the posture the Company would start negotiations from, and renewed their discussion concerning the Company's right to move the plant, with both maintaining their same positions and Roth restating his reasons for believing union representation of the employees would not be to their best interest. Roth confirmed Semendinger's testimony he asked her the extent of union sentiment among the die-shop employ- ees, corroborated Semendinger's testimony concerning his statements the Company would start from scratch in any negotiations, but denied engaging in any discussion of plant closure. I credit Semendinger's testimony as she appeared to be a forthright, sincere witness throughout her testimony. 31 There had been a foreman prior to December 1975 in the division or department and a replacement foreman was hired subsequent to January 1976. 32 Shortly after Grabathy's appointment as a leadlady in October 1975 Roth received complaints Grabathy was overzealous in taking employees to task for alleged deficiencies in their work: he had a conference with her, in On the basis of the foregoing, I find and conclude the Company in January by Roth interrogated employees concerning their and other employees' union activities and sympathies; threatened employees with plant closure and other reprisals; made a statement to an employee which gave her the impression the Company was maintaining a surveillance of union meetings; and stated to an employee the Company would never recognize or bargain with an employee-elected representative, thereby violating Section 8(aXl) of the Act and interfering with employees' freedom of choice in the election. b. Jeanette Grabathy It is alleged the Company by Grabathy violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and interfered with the election in December 1975 by Grabathy's distribution of forms and instructions to employees on how to revoke union authori- zation cards and offering to assist employees in revoking such cards and in January 1976 by Grabathy's statements to employees that the Company would close its plant rather than recognize or bargain with the Union. The Company denied that Grabathy, at times pertinent, was a supervisor or agent of the Company acting on its behalf, further denied that she committed the acts just alleged, and lastly denied such acts, if committed, were violative of the Act. During the December 1975 to January 1976 period in which the aforesaid acts allegedly occurred, the assembly division headed by Roth was without a foreman. 31 Both Roth and the foreman (when employed) were salaried employees with undisputed authority to hire and fire or effectively recommend same; with authority to reprimand and discipline employees; and with authority to direct employees in the department or division in their work performance. The evidence is undisputed Grabathy was an hourly rated employee; that she neither had nor exercised the power to hire or fire or effectively to recommend any hiring or firing; and that she had no authority and did not exercise authority to reprimand or discipline employees.32 The evidence is likewise undisputed Grabathy was paid a rate 15 cents per hour higher than the highest rate paid to any classification she led;33 that she spent 80 percent of her time performing production and maintenance work and only 20 percent of her time leading and directing the work of other employees; that she relieved employees on the lines in case of absences, breaks, lunch periods, and the like; that she not only attended the various union meetings and was treated as an employee eligible to participate in such meetings along with other production and mainte- nance workers, but she acted as an election observer at the election. On the basis of the foregoing, I find and conclude Grabathy at times pertinent was not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.34 which he advised her she had no such power and instructed her to bring any complaints over performance to him and he would decide whether or not any reprimand or discipline was warranted. 33 Grabathy acted as a leadlady in the spray painting and vacuum assembly line. 34 The General Counsel did not contend at the hearing or in his brief (Continued) I1 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In view of the foregoing, I shall recommend those portions of the complaint and election objections based upon any actions allegedly committed by Grabathy be dismissed. 3. The print shop manager At all times pertinent Gary Ashby was the Company's print shop manager and an admitted supervisor and agent of the Company acting on its behalf. The complaint alleges on January 13 Ashby threatened employees with loss of jobs and other reprisals to discourage their support of the Union, interrogated employees concerning their union membership, support, and activities, and gave employees the impression the Company was maintaining a surveil- lance of their union activities. The Ashby allegations rest upon the testimony of Joseph Tykodi. Tykodi testified about a week prior to the election he entered the inspection area in the assembly building and heard Ashby talking to Nora DeGraw, an inspector in the assembly building; that Ashby hailed him and stated he was just the man Ashby wanted to talk to, since he was a strong union man; that the Union had been misinforming the employees by stating the Company did not have to start bargaining from the present wage and fringe benefit levels since the Company could start from scratch; that if the Union got in, there would be fewer jobs and the possibility of a plant move; that he and Ashby then got into a discussion of the Company's pension plan and inadequa- cies Tykodi felt existed in it, with Ashby taking issue with that position by Tykodi; and that the conversation ended with Ashby asking him what extent the Union had support among the die-cast employees, to which he replied, 90 percent. Ashby testified he approached the mailroom in the assembly building about the time in question and heard Tykodi and DeGraw engaged in a heated discussion; that they were discussing her retirement and Tykodi was calling her a dummy for not supporting the Union, since the Company's retirement plan was very poor. Ashby testified he intervened and asked Tykodi whether he understood the pension plan and, if he didn't, suggested he see Sherine East, the Company's personnel director, and get the details; that Tykodi and DeGraw resumed their argument, with Tykodi repeating his remark that DeGraw was stupid for not supporting the Union, at which time he intervened again3 5 and stated to Tykodi if the Union did come in, the Company could start bargaining from scratch with regard to the current wage and fringe benefit levels and if the Company and Union did not reach an agreement, there could be a strike and all the employees would lose income. He corroborated Tykodi's testimony that he asked Tykodi what the union sentiment was among the die-cast employ- ees and stated Tykodi replied a majority of the die-cast Grabathy was an agent of the Company acting on its behalf and contended only that any liability to the Company resulting from her alleged actions was predicated on his theory that she was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. 35 Ashby testified DeGraw was a close freind of his. 36 None of the remarks attributed to Ashby by Tykodi indicate any impression of surveillance, so I shall recommend the portions of the complaint and election objection so alleging also be dismissed. employees supported the Union. Ashby denied making any statement about plant closure. On the basis of their mutual corroboration, I find and conclude Ashby asked Tykodi the extent of union support among the die-cast employees in January and by such statement the Company violated Section 8(aXl) of the Act and interfered with a free election. I credit Ashby's version of the balance of their conversation and find and conclude Ashby did not threaten plant closure in the event the employees chose union representation and that his other statements did not amount to a threat the Company would reduce or take away existing wages and benefits or constitute a threat of job loss or other reprisals and therefore I shall recommend those portions of the com- plaint and election objections attributed to Ashby be dismissed.36 4. The personnel director The complaint alleges in December 1975 the Company violated Section 8(aXl) of the Act and interfered with tle election by a statement attributed to East which in essence promised employees benefits to encourage them to refrain from supporting the Union. The same Joseph Tykodi testified in support of this complaint allegation and election objection. Tykodi testi- fied that on December 2, 1975, he was called to the office of Darryl Roth by East and notified of an increase in his rate of pay; he testified East subsequently stated the employees of the Company had never been union repre- sented, the Company opposed such representation, and the Company would continue to maintain its normal wage adjustment program,37 and that union representation would not be to the employees' benefit; and that they then discussed details of the Company's pension program. It is noted that December 2, 1975, predated the Union's preelection campaign, which commenced on December 4, 1975. In any event, the statement attributed to East by Tykodi is not a promise of future wage adjustments to encourage Tykodi to refrain from union support but, rather, states the Company will continue its past practice. I therefore find and conclude the statement attributed to East by Tykodi did not constitute a promise of future wage increases to discourage his support of the Union and I shall recommend those portions of the complaint and election objections based thereupon be dismissed. 5. The letters and Limacher's speech The balance of the allegations of separate violations of Section 8(aX)(1) of the Act and related election objections are based upon statements contained in the January 6, 15, and 16 letters distributed to the employees by Company President Limacher and a December 11, 1975, letter distributed by William Davis, vice president of industrial relations for the Company's parent, A-T-O, plus remarks 37 The Company made a general wage adjustment in December 1975 in accordance with its normal practice. No allegation of the complaint was based upon that increase and while an election objection was based upon this increase, no evidence or argument supporting it was introduced and I recommend dismissal of that objection. 12 INTERSTATE ENGINEERING made by Limacher in a January 19 speech to the employees at the plant. The General Counsel relies on the following statements contained in the various letters as a basis for the complaint allegations (and related election objections) that the publication and distribution of such letters to the employ- ees constituted independent violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and interfered with the employees' exercise of a free choice in the election. The December 11 letter: If we ever get organized-we are required to bargain with that organization. Some people make the mistake that bargaining starts with what you have and goes from there. This is absolutely wrong-it is a give and take proposition. Everyone should understand early in the game that the law permits a company to bargain from scratch-from a blank piece of paper. When an A-T-O Company is organized, it is our policy to do just that. The January 6 letter: We doubt that the Union has told you that labor negotiations is a tough process and is a two-way street. . .The Company assesses its position on the basis of how much it can afford to pay and still remain competitive, and it takes a stand at this point. In other words, Interstate Engineering, if it loses the election, after bargaining in good faith, would be the sole judge of what type of labor contract was acceptable to it. Sometimes the Union fails or refuses to understand this "simple logic" and keeps promising its members what they can get for them. If this happens, it is likely a strike will follow with all the ensuing disorder, bitterness, lost wages, lost business, or sometimes permanent closing of the plant. The January 15 letter: As I stated on December 1, 1975, "people talking to people on a regular basis" is the best answer to solving all of Interstate's problems today and in the future- NOT A UNION! Hopefully I can immediately restore the "Employee Communication Board" after the election on January 20, 1976.38 The January 16 letter: We are positive that the Union will insist on a union shop if it wins. This requires that all employees be members of the Union and pay their monthly dues and initiation fees in order to be able to work. This would force your company to fire anyone who refuses to become a member of the Union. We are strongly opposed to this as we would be required to force our 3a The General Counsel also relies on a December 17, 1975, letter sent to all employees by Limacher stating as follows: I have reason to believe that when given the benefit of a "secret ballot" they will overwhelmingly reject the Union. Interstate will then take prompt steps to reestablish the "Employee Communication Commit- tee." people to join the Union to keep their jobs. If we were to lose the election, the union shop would be one of the key issues for negotiation, that you should know our feelings at this time. We believe that the Union, if it wins, must try to fulfill its promises and insist on higher wages and benefits. We have the absolute right, under the law, to refuse to grant any union demands if we believe they are not in our company's best interest As a matter of fact, we are not required by law to negotiate from existing wages and benefits; we can start from scratch, disregarding present benefits and wages. We believe that the expected union demands for higher wages and benefits make a strike highly likely if we cannot reach agreement after bargaining in good faith. If there is a strike because we cannot agree on contract terms after bargaining in good faith, we will not close our plant for one single day. We will stay open. Each of you will be welcome to work if there is a strike-we will have jobs for you. But remember this, the law gives us the right to permanently replace any striking employees. We have the absolute right under the law to make the final decision of what is acceptable to the Company. No union can force us to sign any contract which is not acceptable to us. The General Counsel contends the December 11, January 6, and January 16 letters, by stating the Company has the right to bargain with the Union from zero, intends to do so, and further intends to resist any demand for a union shop, coupled with assurances it will replace strikers when the strike it predicts inevitably occurs, exceeds the free speech license contained in Section 8(c) of the Act and threatens both bad-faith bargaining and loss of jobs, thereby violating Section 8(aX1) of the Act and supporting the Union's related objections to the election. The Company relies on Section 8(c) of the Act, stating the above-quoted statements simply inform the employees of economic facts of life and the possible results of lawful stands it would take both in bargaining and in the event of a strike; that in essence these company letters were simply responses to union literature preaching the theme the Company would have to bargain "up" from the existing scale of wages, fringe benefits, and working conditions, etc. 3 9 Several amendments to the complaint were permitted at the outset of the hearing alleging Limacher, the Company's president, threatened plant closure in a speech given the day before the election (January 19). Employee Hare testified Limacher said A-T-O would close the die-cast shop, sell the equipment, and might even move the Company back East because most of the Company's raw materials came from there and most of its products were sold there and that Limacher also stated if 3s The question of whether the Company could bargain "up" or "down" from current levels, whether it could move its plant to another location, and whether its die-cast customers would remove their dies and cause the die- cast business to disappear in the event of a strike were continuous subjects of discussion among the employees during the election campaign, with opposing positions concerning same being taken by union and company representatives both orally and in written form. 13 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Union came in, there would be a strike, the employees would be out of work, and the Company would not be able to pay them. Employee Hecker testified Limacher stated if the Union came in the Company could and would deny the Union's demands, the Company was paying enough currently, and the Company would move its plant if the Union came in. Employee Blossom testified Limacher stated the Company could move its plant to Puerto Rico or Canada any time. Employee Tykodi testified Limacher stated the Company could move its plant after the election. Employee Semendinger testified Limacher stated if eco- nomic conditions required that the Company move its plant, it could do so; that the Hadco division of A-T-O ceased business because the Union which represented its employees was not cooperative; that A-T-O previously wanted to close the Company's die-cast division but he persuaded A-T-O to keep it open and build it up to its present level. Employee Hare under cross-examination testified Limacher said that he wanted to respond to a rumor the Company was considering moving its plant and the Union was claiming it could not; that the Company was not considering moving the plant and had not talked about it though it was his judgment, if economic conditions warranted, no law prevented the Company from moving the plant. Limacher corroborated Hare's testimony that he made the last statement set out above and Semendinger's testimony to the same statement. He testified he stated that wheels were the major product of the die-cast division; that the dies for those wheels belonged to the customers; that if there were a prolonged strike, the customers would undoubtedly remove their dies and have their wheels manufactured elsewhere; and that if they did so, the die- cast division would undoubtedly be forced to cease business. Limacher denied the other statements attributed to him by Hare, Hecker, Blossom, and Tykodi. I credit Limacher's denials of the other statements attributed to him by Hare, Hecker, Blossom, and Tykodi and find Limacher stated on January 19 that, in the event of a strike, the dies would probably be removed from the die-cast department by his customers and the die-cast division would undoubtedly cease operation and that no law prevented the Company from closing or moving its plant in the event economic considerations so warranted. I further find and conclude that the statements con- cerned in the December 11, January 6, and January 16 letters, as well as the January 19 comments made by Limacher to the effect a prolonged strike would result in closure of the die-cast division, contain veiled threats the Company not only had but would exercise its rights to bargain "down" from existing wage and fringe benefit levels and resist any demands for a union shop; that this would inevitably result in a strike; that during such strike it would hire replacements for the striking employees and lose part if not all of its die-shop business; and that those statements violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and inter- fered with the employees' freedom of choice in the election. 40 I have earlier entered findings that this was the classification and rate assigned to Rodriguez when he was hired over Rodriguez' testimony he was hired as an operator at S3.25. 41 It is clearly a key element in the General Counsel's theory of the case that Davis discharged Rodriguez on January 30, 10 days after the election, I further find by the January 15 and December 17, 1975, letters referred to above, the Company stated it was going to revive the Employees Communications Board it domi- nated and controlled after the election and thereby violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act and interfered with the employees' free choice in the election. C. The Alleged Discriminatory Discharge Samuel Rodriguez commenced work in the Company's die-cast division as a trainee on December 1, 1975, at the rate of $2.90 per hour. 40 Rodriguez signed an authorization card for the Union on December 4, 1975, and attended two union meetings thereafter (one on December 7, 1975, and another a few weeks later). He also discussed the Union with other employees. There is no evidence any of these matters ever came to management's attention. Rodriguez voted in the January 20 election. He testified Davis saw him going in to vote from his seat at a lunch table near the polls. 41 Davis acknowledged he was seated at a lunch table in the die-cast building during voting hours (3-4 p.m.) on the day of the election drinking coffee and conceded from his seat he could see the machine Rodriguez normally operated. The first-shift employees 42 were released at 2:30 p.m. on election day. Rodriguez worked on election day as a breaker rather than operating his regular machine (it was down for repairs). Davis denied he saw Rodriguez at any time he sat at the lunch table and did not know whether Rodriguez voted or not. I credit Davis' denial and find Davis did not see Rodriguez in the polling area during the election. Rodriguez' brother-in-law was murdered on Sunday, January 25; Rodriguez testified he did not go to work on Monday, January 26, because his wife was in shock over the death and telephoned the Company to explain the reason for his absence.43 He worked January 27 and 28. On the latter date, he testified he contacted Davis and asked for permission to be absent on January 29 to attend his brother-in-law's funeral, stated to Davis he might not be able to come in on January 30 as well, and that Davis suggested he come in at 5 a.m. on January 29 and work until 7 a.m. and then go to the funeral, to which he replied he would try. Rodriguez did not report for work on either January 29 or 30, but testified he telephoned the personnel office on the latter date to explain he could not come in and his explanation was received without comment. On January 31 a relative came to Rodriguez' home to tell him someone from the Company was trying to reach him by telephone. Thinking the Company wanted him to pick up his paycheck, he went to the Company's personnel office. A clerk there informed him he had been terminated and handed him checks covering his pay through that date. He protested the discharge and was told to contact Davis the following Monday if he wished to discuss it. He made no attempt to contact Davis. because Davis saw Rodriguez going to vote after Rodriguez told Davis on January 17 he was not going to vote. 42 Rodriguez was employed on the first shift. 43 Davis confirmed receiving the report and excusing the absence. 14 INTERSTATE ENGINEERING Davis testified that, in response to Rodriguez' January 28 request for time off to attend the funeral (which was scheduled for 9:30 a.m. on January 29), he instructed Rodriguez to come in on January 29 and work from 5 a.m. (the starting time for 10-hour shifts in die-casting from January 12 for some classifications, including breakers) to 8:30 a.m. and to return to work after the funeral for the balance of his shift and that Rodriguez made no request for permission to be absent on January 30.44 When Davis noted Rodriguez did not come in on either day and checked with the division clericals and personnel and learned Rodriguez did not telephone in either day, he requested authorization to discharge Rodriguez, received it, and processed the discharge on the latter day. Davis (and Ploschek) had been dissatisfied with Rodri- guez' attendance and work habits from mid-January 4 5 and decided by late January to discharge him, though they held off doing so pending location of a suitable replacement. During the week ending January 9, it was decided to place certain portions of the die-cast operations (those producing aluminum wheels) on a 10-hour shift, both on the first and second shifts (there was no third shift). The hours assigned to the first shift operators and support personnel were 5 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. instead of 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. and those of the second shift from 3:30 p.m. to 2 a.m., 2 hours beyond their normal expiration. A bulletin was posted in the department informing all employees of the new work schedules and that it would remain in effect until changed; Davis also advised each affected employee personally of the change, including Rodriguez. The timecards disclose Rodriguez was absent on January 12; reported at 5 a.m. on January 13, 7 a.m. on January 14, 5 a.m. on January 15, and 7 a.m. on January 16; that in the subsequent week, he reported at 7 a.m. on January 19, 7 a.m. on January 20, 5 a.m. on January 21, 7 a.m. on January 22, and 7 a.m. on January 23; that he was absent on January 26; reported at 7 a.m. on January 27, 7 a.m. on January 28, and was absent on January 29 and 30. Both Davis and Ploschek noticed Rodriguez' failure to observe the new starting time from its inception on the new shift schedule. They discussed Rodriguez' failure to report as scheduled and Davis told Ploschek to take it up with Rodriguez, which Ploschek did. Ploschek and Davis noticed that, commencing in early January, Rodriguez' attitude seemed to change, he was slow in returning to his work station after lunch and breaks, etc. On January 22 Davis reminded Rodriguez he was a probationary employee, told him that he was required to work full 10-hour shifts since this was a peak season, advised him his attendance would have to improve, stated that while his work had been good the first 30 days, his performance seemed to have fallen off and he had been observed visiting other employees during working hours 44 Davis' testimony is credited: his demeanor was convincing and his testimony more plausible. 45 Both Davis and Ploschek confirmed their December 29, 1975, review and evaluation of Rodriguez' work performance after his first 30 days on the job, in accordance with normal practice, their satisfaction with his work, their recommendation and grant of a 25-cent increase to S3.15 (which Rodriguez corroborated), and Davis' commendation of Rodriguez and promise of reclassification to the classification of operator if he continued to so perform through his probationary period. and being slow in returning to his work station after breaks and lunch periods, to which Rodriguez replied he would make an effort to report at 5 a.m. and refrain from visiting his fellow employees during working hours.46 It is clear Rodriguez did not report at 5 a.m. on January 23 or on the 2 days he worked in the subsequent week, that he ignored Davis' request to work before and after the January 29 funeral, and that he failed to work or explain his absence on January 30.47 Rodriguez' failure to call in or report on January 29 or 30 was the final straw; on January 30 Rodriguez was terminated despite the unavailability of a suitable replace- ment.4 On the basis of the foregoing, I find and conclude the Company discharged Rodriguez for cause, not because he engaged in protected, concerted activities. I therefore shall recommend those portions of the complaint so alleging be dismissed.49 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. The Company at all times pertinent was an employer engaged in commerce in a business affecting commerce and the ECB and the Union were labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(2), (5), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. At all times pertinent Limacher, William Davis, East, Roth, Jaime, Eugene Davis, Ploschek, Reynolds, and Ashby were supervisors and agents of the Company acting on its behalf and Grabathy was not. 3. The Company violated Section 8(aX1) and (2) of the Act and interfered with its employees' freedom of choice in the election by disbanding the grievance and bargaining committee elected by a majority of its unit employees and forming, dominating, and treating the ECB as its successor. 4. The Company violated Section 8(aXI) of the Act and interfered with its employees' freedom of choice in the election by the following actions committed by Limacher, William Davis, Jaime, Eugene Davis, Roth, and Ashby: Interrogating employees concerning their and other em- ployees' union membership, activities, and sentiments; making statements which gave employees the impression the Company was maintaining a surveillance of their union activities; threatening employees with discharge, job loss, plant closure, reduction of benefits, company refusal to bargain, and other reprisals to discourage their support of the Union; promising benefits to employees to encourage them to withdraw or refrain from supporting the Union; and soliciting grievances or complaints to discourage employee support of the Union. 5. The Company discharged Rodriguez for cause and not because he engaged in protected, concerted activities and did not thereby violate Section 8(aXl) and (3) of the Act. s6 Rodriguez' denial of this conversation is not credited; Davis' testimony was plausible and convincing and supported by Rodriguez' time and attendance records. 47 I credit Davis' testimony Rodriguez did not call in on January 29 or 30. 34 One was secured thereafter. 49 Since Rodnguez' discharge occurred after the election, it was not the basis for an objection to the election. 15 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 6. The Company did not otherwise violate the Act or interfere with the employees' freedom of choice in the election. 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices and election interferences affect commerce as defined in the Act. THE REMEDY Having found the Company engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(aX)() and (2) of the Act and in misconduct which prevented a free and fair election, I recommend election Objections 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 9 be sustained and a new election be directed at a time when the effects of the unfair labor practices and election miscon- duct have been dissipated, that the Company be directed to cease and desist from its unfair labor practices, and that the Company be directed to take the affirmative actions specified below to effectuate the purposes of the Act. Upon the basis of 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: ORDER50 Interstate Engineering, a Division of A-T-O, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Forming, dominating, or assisting the Employee Communications Board or any other labor organization of its employees. (b) Recognizing or bargaining with the Employee Communications Board as the representative of its employ- ees for the purpose of adjusting such employees' wages, rates of pay, hours, or working conditions. (c) Interrogating its employees concerning their and/or other employees' union membership, activities, or senti- ments; making statements to its employees which give the 50 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. impression the Company is maintaining a surveillance of their union activities; threatening employees either directly or by implication with discharge, job loss, plant closure, reduction of benefits, company refusal to bargain with a collective-bargaining representative duly selected by a majority of its employees within an appropriate unit, or other reprisals to discourage their support of the Alumi- num Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization; promising benefits to employees to encourage them to withdraw or refrain from supporting the aforesaid or any other labor organization; soliciting grievances or complaints from employees to discourage their support of the aforesaid or any other labor organiza- tion. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the purposes of the Act: (a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from the Employee Communications Board and completely dises- tablish it as the representative of the Company's employees for the purpose of adjusting the employees' wages, rates of pay, hours, or working conditions. (b) Post at its place of business in Anaheim, California, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 51 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 21, duly signed signed by an autho- rized representative of the Company, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Company to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Company has taken to comply herewith. 51 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." 16