M. Trelles & Company

In the Matter of MAORINO TRELLES, MANUEL TRRI.r.Fs, UBALDO TRF.LLES AND MAx L. BLOCK, CO-PARTNERS, DOING BUSINESS AS M. TRELLES & COMPANY and MRS. XAVIA GIARDINA Case No. 0-74B.-Decided May 15, 19,39 Hand-Made Cigar Manufacturing Industry-Interference , Restraint, and Coercion: close surveillance of activities of employees active in union ; sur- veillance of union meeting ; remarks made by supervisors to employees clearly indicating employer's opposition to the union ; employer ordered to cease such practices-Company-Dominated Union : charges of, dismissed as without evi- dence-Discrimination : charge of, dismissed. Mr. Samuel Lang, for the Board. Deutsch and Kerrigan, by Mr. Eberhard P. Deutsch and Mr. Marion Meyer, of New Orleans, La., for the respondent. Mr. Wallace Cooper, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges duly filed by Mrs. Xavia Giardina, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by Charles H. Logan, Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region (New Orleans, Louisiana), issued its complaint dated April 18, 1938, against Ma- crino Trelles, Manuel Trelles, Ubaldo Trelles, and Max L. Block, copartners, doing business as M. Trelles & Company, New Orleans, Louisiana, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the respondent and Mrs. Giardina. The complaint alleged in substance that on or about February 18, 1938, the respondent discharged Mrs. Giardina and had at all times 12 N. L. R. B., No. 98. 981 982 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD since refused to reinstate her, because she joined and assisted the Committee for Industrial Organization, herein called the C. I. 0.; that between December 10, 1937, and April 10, 1938, the respondent by veiled threats and intimidation, by surveillance of union activities and conduct of employees known particularly for their C. I. O. ac- tivity, and by other acts and conduct, discouraged membership in a labor organization of the employees' own choosing and particularly the C. I. 0.; and that between November 1, 1937, and March 1, 1938, the respondent attempted to cause the formation of a labor organiza- tion for the purpose of frustrating the efforts of the employees to organize within the C. I. O. On April 22, 1938, the respondent filed an answer containing a general denial of the material allegations of the complaint and affirmatively alleging that Mrs. Giardina had been discharged for cause. Pursuant to notice a hearing was held in New Orleans, Louisiana, on April 28, 29, and 30, and May 2 and 3, 1938, before Webster Powell, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel and partici- pated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to produce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the hearing, the respondent ob- jected to the introduction by the Board of certain evidence relative to activities by the respondent prior to November 1, 1937, basing such objection on the fact that the unfair labor practices set forth in the complaint were alleged to have occurred subsequent to Novem- ber 1, 1937. This objection is considered in Section III below. At the close of the Board's case, counsel for the Board moved that the pleadings be amended to conform with the proof. No objection was raised to this motion, and it was granted by the Trial Examiner. The ruling is hereby affirmed. During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made several rulings on other motions and on other objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has re- viewed these rulings and finds that no prejudicial errors were com- mitted. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On July 5, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed an Intermediate Report in which he found that the respondent had engaged in and is engag- ing in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act, and recommended that the respondent be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to reinstate Mrs. Giardina with back pay. The Trial Examiner further found that the respondent had not engaged in and is not engaging in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act, and recommended that the complaint be dismissed in that respect. Copies of the Inter- mediate Report were duly served on the respondent and Mrs. Giardina. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the Inter- MACRINO TRELLES 983 mediate Report and a brief in support thereof. It also filed a mo- tion to correct the record by including a portion of the testimony of Abel Vagas allegedly omitted from the transcript of the hearing. The motion is considered below. Pursuant to notice, oral argument was had before the Board at Washington, D. C., on February 23, 1939. The respondent was represented by counsel and participated in the argument. The Board has considered the exceptions to the Intermediate Report filed by the respondent and, except in so far as they are consistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below, finds them without merit. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The respondent is a commercial partnership organized under the laws of the State of Louisiana, the partners being Manuel Trelles, Ubaldo Trelles, Macrino Trelles, and Max L. Block. It is engaged at New Orleans, Louisiana, in the manufacture and sale of hand-made cigars. During 1937, the respondent used in connection with its operations $493,722.52 worth of tobacco, obtaining all of the tobacco from Cuba and Connecticut. During such period, it also used $616,787.80 worth of other raw materials, supplies, and equipment. 'Approximately 90 per cent of such raw materials, supplies, and equipment, were obtained from points outside the State of Louisiana. During 1937, the respondent sold 40,906,032 cigars having a total value of $1,623,216.10. Approximately 63 per cent of the cigars were shipped outside the State of Louisiana. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED A labor organization, herein called the Union, was formed by employees of the respondent during the period from October to December 1937. The Union has taken certain steps in contempla- tion of affiliation with the Committee for Industrial Organization, but no charter had been obtained at the time of the hearing. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference, restraint, and coercion During the course of a conversation in September 1937 between Manuel Trelles, a partner in the respondent firm, and Joseph Lopez, one of the respondent's cigar makers, Trelles stated that he under- stood that Lopez had been "carrying on" with the C. I. O. When 984 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Lopez denied having done so, Trelles replied, "Well, that is all I wanted to know. That means we are still friends." Although the record does not show that at the time of the above conversation any active steps had been taken to organize the em- ployees, Lopez shortly thereafter in October 1937 initiated a move- ment for the formation of a union and proposed that it affiliate with the C. I. O. An organizational meeting was held on November 1, 1937, at which plans were made to have the employees sign C. I. O. application cards which Lopez had obtained from officials of the C. I. O. On November 6, 1937, the day prior to the date set for a second meeting of employees, Manuel Trelles called Lopez aside at the factory and asked him, "What is that you carry on upstairs?" When Lopez replied to the effect that nothing was being carried on, Trelles stated that Lopez was a "fool and a big talker" and added, "I always did tell you that a rotton apple in a case will rot the others." When Lopez stated that he did not know what Trelles was talking about, Trelles replied, "You will find out." Although Trelles did not at this time specifically mention his previous conversation with Lopez in September, the uncontroverted testimony of Lopez was that Trelles told him during the course of the second conversa- tion, "As it is, you had already promised that you won't get into this." Since Trelles referred in the conversation in September to the C. I. O. and in view of the other circumstances hereinafter set forth, we think it clear and find that Trelles' conversation with Lopez on November 6, 1937, was designed to interfere with, coerce, and restrain Lopez with regard to his union activities. As indicated above, a second meeting of employees was held on November 7, 1937, and a membership committee was selected., Lopez testified that at about this time approximately 70 persons had signed C. I. O. application cards and that at the time of the hearing the number had increased to approximately 200.2 Joseph Garcia, a fore- man, and Manuel Garcia, both nephews of Manuel Trelles, shortly before the hour set for the November 6 meeting watched the entrance to the hall where the meeting was held from an automobile and inquired of Henry Fortunato, an employee who had arrived early to attend the meeting and who was waiting outside the hall, as to what he was doing in that "strange neighborhood." During the meeting, the two Garcias drove slowly past the meeting hall a number of times. About this time, Manuel Trelles informed a number of the foremen and supervisory employees that they were not to interfere with the 1 At a later meeting in December 1937, officers were elected. 2 At the hearing , the respondent asked that there be submitted a list of the persons signing C. I. O. application cards in order that they might be used in cross-examining Lopez with respect to his testimony concerning the number of persons signing such cards. The Trial Examiner denied this request. The ruling is hereby affirmed. IVIACRINO TRELLES 985, union activities which were being carried on. At the same time, however, he instructed Ralph Ayala, foreman of the cigar makers, that he should be "careful and watch everything" and instructed Fernando Trelles, a supervisory employee, that he should "keep his eyes open and his mouth closed" and report what he saw. Fernando Trelles testified that when he "saw or heard anything" he reported it to Manuel Trelles. The evidence shows that Ayala was even more active in his attempts to discourage the union activity. Abel Vagas, an employee, testified that, having heard rumors that a report had been made to Ayala and Manuel Trelles that he (Vagas) was forcing employees to join the C. I. 0., he asked Ayala if such a report had been made and that Ayala replied that he had heard that Vagas was "with that bunch over there" and pointed to Lopez and Fortunato, two active members of the C. I. 0. Vagas testified that Ayala then remarked, "I am surprised at you, you have four sisters working" and added, "as long as you do what is right ... you will stick here 16 more years." Although Ayala did not deny the aforesaid testimony of Vagas, the respondent contends that weight should not be given to such testimony in view of a statement made by Vagas on cross- examination. In testifying on cross-examination with respect to matters other than the remarks Ayala is alleged to have made, Vagas stated that he was somewhat mixed up and could not remember what actually occurred. Counsel for the respondent then asked, "Do you lose remembrance on cross-examination or on direct examination?" Vagas' answer as set forth in the transcript of the hearing is, "I don't know." The respondent contends that in fact Vagas also answered, "You see, I used to be a prize-fighter, and like they say, I'd get punch drunk, and since then I guess I've never been quite right in the head." It has filed a motion asking that the record be cor- rected to include such additional answer. Counsel for the Board has filed an affidavit stating that his recollection is that Vagas answered, "I don't know. You see, I used to be a prize fighter, and like they say, I get punch drunk." We feel it unnecessary, however, to make any definite determination as to the precise wording of the aforesaid answer of Vagas on cross-examination. We think that even if Vagas made the answer which the respondent contends that he made there is no sufficient basis for not giving weight to his clear and unrefuted testimony on direct examination with respect to the statements made to him by Ayala. We conclude that Ayala made the statments at- tributed to him by Vagas. We find it unnecessary, therefore, to pass upon the respondent's motion referred to above. Numerous witnesses testified that following the initiation of the union organizational activities the attitude of the supervisory officials of the respondent toward the employees actively engaged in such activities changed noticeably and that such employees were 986 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD watched very closely. Moreover a rule against employees walking around in the factory and talking was strictly enforced only after the union movement was begun. The respondent admits that begin- ning about October 1937 a closer watch was kept on the employees than prior thereto but contends that such action resulted from the fact that about October 25, 1937, it began to receive an unusually large number of both oral and written complaints concerning the presence of foreign matter in their cigars. The respondent submit- ted in evidence in this connection 10 letters which complained of the presence of foreign matter in the cigars. It was conceded that the 10 letters comprised the total number of written complaints received during the 6 months' period beginning October 25, 1937. Four of the letters were received in 1937 and six were received in the early part of 1938. On the basis of the entire record, we are not convinced by the con- tention of the respondent relative to the close watch which was kept upon the employees. Such surveillance was begun only after the employees had initiated their organizational activities and con- cerned primarily the leaders in such organizational activities. It was begun prior to the date of receipt of any unusual number of complaints. It took place about the time that Manuel Trelles talked with the supervisory employees about the union activities in the plant and instructed a number of them to watch for any union activity. We conclude that the surveillance was for the purpose of interfering with the employees in their attempts to organize. At the hearing, the respondent objected to the introduction of any evidence relative to unfair labor practices on the part of the respondent prior to November 1, 1937, on the ground that there is nothing in the charge or complaint referring to a period prior to November 1, 1937, and hence that the respondent had not been put on notice of the Board's intention to offer evidence as to matters arising prior to that date. The only evidence considered herein relating to a period prior to November 1, 1937, is that dealing with the remarks made by Manuel Trelles to Joseph Lopez in September 1937. Trelles was present at the hearing and the re- spondent clearly had adequate opportunity to meet such evidence. The incident of September 1937 was, moreover, closely related to Trelles' conversation with Lopez on November 6, 1937, a date sub- sequent to the period covered by the objection of the respondent. The Board's attorney at the close of the Board's case moved to amend the pleadings to conform with the proof. No objection was raised to this motion and it was granted by the Trial Examiner. We find that the respondent was not prejudiced by the ruling of the Trial Examiner overruling the objection. MACRINO TRELLES 987 In its exceptions to the Intermediate Report of the Trial Exam- iner, the respondent excepts to the action of the Trial Examiner in having permitted introduction at the hearing of evidence relating to unfair labor practices prior to December 10, 1937, and to the findings of the Trial Examiner that the respondent engaged in unfair labor practices prior to December 10, 1937. The respondent based its exceptions on the ground that the unfair labor practices set forth in the complaint are alleged to have occurred subsequent to Decem- ber 10, 1937. The respondent raised no objection at the hearing to the introduction of evidence with respect to the period subsequent to November 1, 1937. The facts with respect to the unfair labor prac- tices prior to December 10, 1937, were fully tried at the hearing. As stated above, the respondent raised no objection to the action of the Trial Examiner in granting the motion of counsel for the Board to amend the pleadings to conform with the proof. Under such circum- stances, we find the said exceptions of the respondent to be without merit. We find that by virtue of the remarks which Manuel Trelles made to Joseph Lopez in September 1937 and on November 6, 1937, by virtue of the surveillance by Joseph and Manuel Garcia of the meet- ing of employees on November 7, 1937, by virtue of the instructions given to foremen and other supervisory employees relative to the watching of the activities of the employees, by virtue of the activities of Ralph Ayala and Fernando Trelles, by virtue of the close sur- veillance of the employees active in the attempts of the employees to organize, the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. B. The alleged domination of and interference with a labor organization The complaint alleges that between November 1, 1937, and March 1, 1938, the respondent attempted to cause the formation of a labor organization for the purpose of frustrating the efforts of its em- ployees to organize within the C. I. 0., but that on or about March 1, 1938, such attempt was abandoned because of the lack of interest of the employees. The evidence shows that about November 1937, August Metoyer, a colored employee, advised a number of the colored employees that he was opposed to a union such as the C. I. 0. and that he intended to form a labor organization among the employees of the respondent in opposition to the C. I. 0. About this same time, Metoyer in- formed Manuel Trelles that a number of employees were complain- ing to him about the C. I. 0. activities. It appears that Metoyer made a similar complaint to Trelles about February 1938. Metoyer 988 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD testified that Trelles heard his complaints and asked him about his own opinion, but that Trelles did not express any views to him about the C. I. 0. or about any other labor organization. Metoyer ap- parently at no time took any steps to carry out his declared intention of forming a labor organization. We find that the respondent has not engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. C. The discharge of Mrs. Xavia Giardina Mrs. Giardina was employed by the respondent as a cigar roller in May 1934 and worked in such capacity until her discharge on February 18, 1938. During the term of her employment, at least until about Christmas 1937, Mrs. Giardina proved to be a fair, aver- age roller, receiving no more complaints about her work than many of her coworkers. The respondent contends, however, that shortly before Christmas 1937 Mrs. Giardina made a large number of bad cigars which were returned to her for repair by her foreman with a reprimand; that thereafter until February 17, 1938, her services grew more and more unsatisfactory; and that during such latter period she received some half-dozen complaints about her work from her foreman. The respondent further contends that on February 17, 1938, Mrs. Giardina made 25 bad cigars and was discharged on the following day because of her poor work. Mrs. Giardina denied at the hearing that she had been disciplined at any time during the 2 or 3 months prior to her discharge and testified that she had never been warned during the period of her employment with the respond- ent that if she did not do better work she would be discharged. Mrs. Giardina contended that such warning was customary prior to a discharge and that she was discharged because of her union activity rather than because of poor work. We are convinced on the basis of the evidence presented that from Christmas 1937 until February 17, 1938, Mrs. Giardina's attention was called about six times to her unsatisfactory work. The testimony of Ayala, Mrs. Giardina's foreman, that about Christmas 1937 he called,Mrs. Giardina into the packing room and showed her 12 or 15 bad cigars made by her was supported by the testimony of some 4 of Mrs. Giardina's coworkers. The testimony of Mrs . Giardina's co- workers also supports Ayala's testimony that he talked with Mrs. Giardina about five times after Christmas about unsatisfactory work ,performed by her. It appears that bad cigars are usually returned to the roller to be done over, but that the foreman on his daily rounds merely cautions rollers about unsatisfactory, though passable, cigars and that such cigars are not returned to the roller . There is no showing that cigars were actually returned to Mrs. Giardina between MACRINO TRFLLFS 989 Christmas 1937 and February 17, 1938. There is no showing, more- over, that Mrs. Giardina was told during this period that she would be discharged if her work did not improve. On February 9, 1938, and thus 9 days before her discharge, Mrs. Giardina signed a C. 10. membership application card. She testi- fied that prior thereto she had discussed the National Labor Relations Act and the benefits of organization with a number of employees. She was placed on the membership committee of the Union immedi- atelv after February 9. Shortly before February 9, persons in charge of arrangements for a dinner which was being given in New Orleans, Louisiana, on Feb- ruary 15, 1938, in honor of Miss Frances Perkins, Secretary of Labor, had sent invitations to the dinner to "C. 10. Cigar Makers Union, care of Joseph Lopez." Lopez consulted with a number of employees and it was decided that he and Henry Fortunato should attend and collections were made among the employees for this purpose. After Mrs. Giardina signed a C. I. O. application card, Lopez decided that she should go as representative of the women employees of the factory if enough money was collected to send three persons. The collections which were openly solicited from both union and non-union employees proved to be sufficient to enable three persons to attend the dinner and Mrs. Giardina as well as Lopez and Fortunato did so. On the afternoon of February 17, 1938, Fernando Trelles, a cigar examiner, discovered eight or nine bad cigars in bundles containing Mrs. Giardina's number. He thereupon gathered together the various bundles of cigars containing her number and took them to Ayala, the foreman. Together Ayala and Trelles examined the bundles and discovered a total of 25 bad cigars. This fact was reported by Ayala to Manuel Trelles who asked whether "that number" had been pre- viously warned about poor work. When Ayala answered in the affirmative Trelles directed that Mrs. Giardina be discharged. Notwithstanding the instructions given by Trelles, Ayala was apparently uncertain at the time whether or not to discharge Mrs. Giardina. This is indicated not only by Ayala's testimony but also by the fact that on the morning of February 18 he placed the 25 cigars on the table of Mrs. Giardina and asked Mrs. Dowie, Mrs. Giardina's bunch maker, to inform Mrs. Giardina when she arrived at the plant that "if she can't do her work any better than this that she will have to leave today." When Mrs. Giardina arrived at the fac- tory shortly thereafter, Mrs. Dowie informed her with regard to what had occurred. Mrs. Giardina thereupon went to, see Ayala and asked whether the cigars should be rolled again or merely patched. Ayala informed her that she had been warned frequently about, poor work and that she "had better go home." Mrs. Giardina returned to.her table, told a number of her coworkers that she had been discharged 990 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD for making bad cigars, and then left the factory. On the same after- noon, she returned to the factory and asked Ayala if she was definitely discharged. When Ayala attempted to discuss the matter, Mrs. Giar- dina stated, "There is no use, somebody will decide this matter for me." She then collected her wages and left the factory. Although Mrs. Giardina testified at the hearing that she was not sure that the 25 cigars which were placed on her table on the morning of February 18 were made by her, the evidence as a whole appears conclusive on this point. The inspector who found the cigars iden- tified them as having been taken from the bundles marked with Mrs. Giardina's number. Her foreman testified that he recognized the cigars as Mrs. Giardina's work. Four of Mrs. Giardina's immediate coworkers stated that on the basis of their knowledge of Mrs. Giar- dina's work they recognized the cigars as having been made by her. Under all the circumstances, we think that no sufficient showing has been made that the respondent discharged Mrs. Giardina because of her union affiliation and activity rather than because of her poor work. We have found that she was warned a number of times be- tween Christmas 1937 and February 17, 1938, about her unsatisfac- tory work and that on February 17, 1938, she made 25 bad cigars. Although it was not unusual for a cigar roller occasionally to have from one to five cigars returned in a single day for repair, the making of 25 bad cigars was admittedly an extraordinary occurrence. Abel Vagas, one of the active members of the union group, testified that the 25 cigars made by Mrs. Giardina were so bad that even "an ap- prentice could do better than that." Lopez, a leader of the union group, testified that he had not seen cigars so made outside of his apprenticeship. In addition, the evidence indicates that during Mrs. Giardina's employment some 10 to 20 employees had been discharged for bad work and that some of these had been in the respondent's employ for as long as 15 years. Although the respondent frequently gave specific warnings to employees prior to a discharge that they would be discharged if they did not do better work and although Mrs. Giardina was not prior to her discharge given any such specific warn- ing, we do not feel that this fact in itself affords a sufficient basis for a finding of discrimination in view of the complaints which were made to Mrs. Giardina about her work and in view of the number of bad cigars made by her on February 17. The evidence indicates, moreover, that the respondent might have given Mrs. Giardina an- other chance on February 18 but that she foreclosed such possibility by refusing to discuss the matter and by taking the position that "somebody will decide this matter for me." It is also to be noted with regard to our conclusion that no suffi- cient showing has been made that the respondent discriminated against Mrs. Giardina because of her union affiliation and activity MACRINO TRELLES 991 that the evidence leaves doubt as to whether the respondent knew of such affiliation and activity at the time of Mrs. Giardina's discharge. A number of the employees who worked at the same table in the factory as Mrs. Giardina testified that they knew of her union affilia- tion and activities and that Mrs. Giardina talked at the table about her union affiliation and attendance at the dinner for Miss Perkins in a voice which was loud enough to be heard by those sitting around her in the factory. A number of witnesses testified that it was gen- erally known that Mrs. Giardina was a member of the C. I. O. Mrs. Giardina testified that she solicited union members in the factory and solicited funds for the Union a few days before her discharge. On the other hand, a considerable number of employees at the same table as Mrs. Giardina testified that they did not know of her union affilia- tion or that she had attended the dinner for Miss Perkins. Numer- ous of the respondent's officials and supervisory employees, including Ayala, Manuel Trelles, and Fernando Trelles, testified that they did not know of her union affiliation or activity. Under all the circumstances, we find that the respondent has not discriminated against Mrs. Giardina with regard to her hire and tenure of employment, thereby encouraging or discouraging mem- bership in a labor organization. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respond- ent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and sub- stantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom. Upon the foregoing findings of facts and upon the record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Committee for Industrial Organization and the organiza- tion of employees at the plant of the respondent are labor organi- zations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 992 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. 5. The respondent has not engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent, Macrino Trelles, Manuel Trelles, Ubaldo Trelles, and Max L. Block, copartners, doing business as M. Trelles & Company, New Orleans, Louisiana, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restrain- ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self- organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain- ing or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Immediately post, and keep posted for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees in conspicuous places throughout its factory, stating that the respondent will cease and desist as aforesaid; (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region (New Orleans, Louisiana) in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed in so far as it alleges that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) and (3) of the Act. MR. DONALD WAKEFIELD SMITH took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order.