Jahn & Ollier Engraving Co.

In the Matter Of JAHN & OLLIER ENGRAVING COMPANY and CHICAGO PHOTO-ENGRAVERS UNION, LOCAL #5 Case No. C-1535.-Decided June 21, 1940 Photo-engraving Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: anti-union statements and activities of supervisory employees and officials ; posting of :one- sided data about the Act ; posting notice of continuation of anti-union policy ;' execution of individual profit-sharing contract with employees ; respondent ordered to- notify employees that profit-sharing contract invalid. Mr. Charles F. MIIeErlean, for the Board. Messrs. Fyffe c6 Clarlc, by Mr. Albert J. Smith and Mr. John Har- rington, of Chicago, Ill., for the respondent. Mr. Irwin Bloom, of Chicago, Ill., for the Union. Mr. Herbert B. Galton, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Chicago Photo- Engravers Union, Local #5, herein called the Union,' the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois), issued its complaint dated January 18, 1940, against Jahn & Oilier Engraving Company, Chicago, Illinois, 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) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint were duly served upon the respondent and the Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance that the respondent, from November 1936 to the date of the complaint, by attempting to induce employees to spy on em- ployees' union activities, by questioning employees as to their union 1 The name of the Union, as it appears in its constitution and bylaws , is "Chicago Photo- Engravers' Union No. 5 of the International Photo-Engravers ' Union of North America." 24 N. L. R. B., No. 94. 893 1 894 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD activities, by asking employees whether union organizers, solicited them to join -the Union, by informing employees that it would never sign a contract with the Union, by advising employees that it would go out of. business before it would sign a contract with the Union, by threatening employees with loss of employment or less employ- ment.if they joined the Union, by forbidding employees to mention the Union while working but not restricting other matters and con- versations not pertaining directly to its `business, by advising em- ployees that there was no reason for them to join the Union, by, stat- ing. to employees that if the Union organized the shop the Union would close down the plant by calling a strike, by threatening to. cause-work normally done at the plant to be transferred to other engraving plants in the event the employees joined the Union, by stating to employees that the union leaders were organizing em- ployees.merely for the money they received,. by posting a bulletin misinforming the employees as to their rights under the Act,by'so- liciting employees to enter into individual contracts of employment; by interfering with employees in their selection of a bargaining rep- resentative during an election conducted by the Regional Director, by, urging employees to vote against, the Union, by stating to em- ployees that if they were faithful to the respondent in voting that they would win in the long run, by. asking employees how they voted, by advising apprentice employees that they would lose their jobs if the Union won the election,-by stating to employees that a strike would be called if the Union won the election, and by prom- ising to promote employees if they voted against the Union, inter- fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The respondent filed a motion with the Regional Director for a bill of particulars and thereafter an answer in which it' admitted the allegations of the complaint concerning the nature of its business but denied that it had engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices. The respondent in its answer asserted that "such information and statements as were given and made Wits employes were for the purpose of advising the' employes of the respondent's intention. to continue to operate' its business in such manner that membership in a labor organization would not be a requirement for employment and for the further purpose of answering untruthful, misleading and vicious statements and attacks, written and verbal, made against the respondent and its officers, by labor organizations," including the Union andits organizers and officers. . Pursuant to notice .duly.,served upon the respondent and the Union, a hearing was held at Chicago,; Illinois, on January 29, 30, and' 31, 1940, before William P. Webb, the Trial Examiner duly designated r JAI-{\ & OLLIER ENGRAVING COMPANY 895 by the Board. The Board, the respondent, and the Union' were. represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full oppor= tunity .to be heard, to examine and ,cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. At the inception of the hearing, the Trial Examiner denied the. re- spondent's motion for a bill of particulars. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has re- viewed the rulings of the Trial .Examiner and .finds that no. preju- dicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Thereafter, the respondent filed a brief with the Trial Examiner. On April 2, 1940, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served upon the respondent and the Union. In his Intermediate Report the Trial Examiner found that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices affecting com- merce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act and recommended that the respondent cease and desist therefrom, post 'appropriate notices, and inform its employees who had signed a profit-sharing contract dated July 15, 1938, that in so far as. such contract involves their agreement not to strike, the re- spondent is obligated to discontinue it as a term or condition of employment: On April 29, 1940, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and on May 8, 1940, it filed a brief in sup- port of its exceptions. The respondent did not request opportunity to present oral argument before the Board. The. Board has considered the exceptions of the respondent and; save, as. they, are consistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below, finds them to be 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, Jahn & Oilier Engraving Company, is a Delaware corporation having its principal office and place. of business in Chi- cago, Illinois. It is engaged in the business of commercial printing, photo-engraving, and commercial photography. 'The principal raw materials used by the, respondent are chemicals, metals, paper, wood, glass, and ink. During 1939 the respondent spent approximately $100,000 for the purchase of such materials, of which about 3 per cent were purchased outside the State of Illinois. The principal products. of the respondent are drawings, mechanical illustrations, retouched photographs, half-tones, zinc etchings, and color process plates. The average yearly billings of the respondent 896 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD amount to about $1,000,000, of which approximately 30 per cent represents billings to customers outside the State of Illinois. The.respondent maintains branch offices in Pittsburgh, Pennsyl vania, and New York City, and employs salesmen whose territories embrace the States-east of the Mississippi River. The respondent employs about 240 employees in its plant. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Chicago Photo-Engravers Union, Local #5, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to its membership photo-engravers employed in the Chicago area, including photo-engravers and foremen employed by the respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Chronology of. events In 1905 the contractual relations which theretofore had existed between the Union and the respondent were discontinued. The Union, however, continued its efforts to unionize the respondent's employees. From 1905 to 1933 the respondent actively opposed the union organization of its employees and secured contracts from them under which they agreed to refrain from joining labor organizations. In 1933 the respondent modified its position with respect to union organization and adopted an alleged open-shop policy under which it ostensibly operated its business thereafter. In January 1937 the Union inaugurated a . membership campaign among the respondent's' employees. The campaign met with .some success and within the following year and a half a substantial number of the respondent's employees had joined the Union. On August 17, 1937, the respondent posted on its bulletin board "A Message To Employees," which presented the following "Facts about the Wagner Act": We desire our employees to know their. rights under the Wagner Act. Many misleading statements and propaganda are being cir- culated among employees. In order to give you actual facts and to prevent misunderstanding, we present below some questions and our answers, supported by official statements of those who sponsored the bill in Congress. QUESTION.' Is an employee required. to join a labor union? ANSWER. No. He is not required to join or pay duest to° any., organization of any kind. Senator Walsh of Massachusetts, who piloted the bill through the Senate, said : JAHN & OLLIER ENGRAVING COMPANY 897 ' "The bill does not require or request any employee to join any organization of any kind, shape or character. It does not seek to encourage or bring about the establishment of any labor organi- zation under any employer where there is now none". QUESTION . If an employer should engage in collective bargain- ing with a LABOR union must he agree to its demands? Must he.reach an agreement of any nature? ANSWER: No . The Supreme Court of the United States says: "The Act does not compel agreements between employers and employees. It does not compel any agreement whatever." Sena- tor Wagner of New York, author of the bill , said : "It does not compel anyone to make a contract ' of any , kind if no terms are arrived at that are satisfactory to him. The very essence of collective bargaining is that either party shall be free to with- draw if its conditions are not met." QUESTION. Does the Wagner Act require closed shop agree- ments ? ANswER.' NO. Senator Wagner said : "There is nothing in the bill which favors the closed shop. It provides merely that closed shop agreements may be made, but only in those states where they are now-legal , by voluntary agree- ments between employers and employees." QUESTION. May an employee elect to deal directly with his employer and not deal through a labor organization? ANSWER. Yes. The Supreme Court of the United States says that the Act does not prevent an employer from making such , individual contracts as he may "elect to make directly with individual employees". QUESTION . DOES THE Supreme- Court ruling make it im- possible for an employee to be discharged for failure to fulfill duties? ANSWER. No . The Supreme Court says : "The Act . does not interfere with the normal exercise of the right of the employer to select his employees or to discharge them. About the middle of February 1938 Robert Esplin, the foreman of the half-tone gallery, said to William J. Hall, an employee in his department : "Now, you are a good friend of Mr. [V. M.] Ollier's [chairman of the respondent's board . of directors]. ' He has done many a favor for you. Here is an opportunity to do a favor for him." Hall asked, "What is it ?" Esplin replied, "Well, there has been ,ome talk of union activities about the plant here . If you hear anything, I would like to have you let me know." Hall refused to act as an informer against his fellow employees. Esplin, in justification of his position, testified : "I work for a living at Jahn & Ollier's. I don't 898 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR. RELATIONS BOARD believe in unions, and I felt that, .being supervisor of the department, that it was in my power, so far as the men were concerned, to ask them any question that I wanted to, that was my liberty.". Raymond T. Paul, an employee of the half-tone etching room, testi- fied that in April 1938 he told Albert Albin, his foreman,, that .a union organizer had been over to see him the previous evening. Albin re- plied, "Is that right? Don't have any part of those fellows. Don't leave, them get in your life and ruin your life.". Albin denied making this statement, but admitted that lie might have talked to employees about the Union as he felt that he "would be justified in doing it .. . to protect my job." He further admitted that if he did have any, such conversations, he would have told the employees that he disapproved of the Union. In view of Albin's admissions, we find, as did the Trial' Examiner, that-Albin made the statement attributed to him by Paul. On a few occasions during 1938 the respondent called meetings of the employees during which union matters as well as their work were discussed. At one of these meetings in May Clarence S. Boothby, president of the respondent, stated that he was present to reiterate the long-standing policy of the respondent, that the respondent "were honest business men trying to give the employees a square deal," that ."they [the Union] don't want you, they want your clues," and "that at no time would they [the respondent] sign any agreement or contract with the union whereby an employee of theirs had to pay dues to work for 'them." Boothby admitted having made substantially the fore- going remarks, testifying, however, that' with reference to agreements he told the employees that."if ever a law was passed in this country which would compel us to sign .a closed shop contract which-would prevent us from hiring any man who wanted to support his family and did not want to pay dues.in the union, then we would close our plant." Oilier, an officer of the respondent, was present at this meeting and also addressed the employees. According to the undenied testimony of Board witnesses, which we accept as. true, Oilier told the employees that there were "some poison peddlers in the firm" and that there was "some poison propaganda being spread around the shop that was'hurt- ing the shop, and he didn't feel it was fair." In May and November.1938, Leo Klein,2 foreman of the zinc-etching department, told- Howard Henry Klooster, an apprentice zinc-printer, that it would cost about $20 a month to belong to the Union, and that if the Union came into the, plant, Klooster would probably lose his 'job because the ratio of apprentices to journeymen in the plant was too great. On July 9,1938; Alexander F. Ross,'the re'spondent's superintendent,. :entered into a conversation with William ' V.' Barrier, an employee. s Also known as Louis Klein. JAHN & OLLIER ENGRAVING COMPANY 899 13arrier testified that Ross called him into.his office and asked Barrier. whether he "was in on this union business." Barrier denied that he was "in on this, union business" but stated that he "might go over to the union side." According to Barrier, Ross then said, "Well, you .know you have a family, I mean a wife and children, and you know ..what you got with Jahn & Oilier and you know what you got with the union." Barrier further quoted Ross as saying, "you know if you go over to work in a union shop, you will have to prove yourself .... we let you get away with stuff here." Ross testified in this connection that Barrier came to his desk for instructions, and. that after giving Barrier necessary orders, .he asked Barrier whether, he [Barrier] had been influenced "by the talk that had been going around." Accord- ing to Ross, Barrier stated that he would not answer "yes or no," whereupon Ross replied that such was Barrier's privilege. Ross ad- mitted reminding. Barrier "that he had certain obligations as a hus- band and, father," and asking him to "think it over very carefully before he came to any decision." Ross admitted that he disapproved of employees joining the Union. In view of Ross' admitted hostility to the Union and the substance of his testimony, we credit Barrier's version of the conversation and find that Ross made the statements attributed to him by Barrier. About a week after this conversation took place, Foreman Albin told Barrier that "Ross seems to think that .you are in the union, but I don't." On about August 1, 1938, Boothby called Norton C. Doland, an employee, into his office and after speaking, to him about his refer- ences told him, according to the latter, that the respondent "had given me [Doland] a break by hiring me and I couldn't find a job in any other open shop in the city at the time." Boothby accused Doland of talking about the Union in the shop and asked him if he had any connection with the Union and whether he attended union meet- ings. Boothby further remarked that Raymond Paul,a union mem- ber, was a "smart agitator" who was "breaking his neck to turn out his work" but that "he [Paul] wasn't kidding anybody." . According to Doland, Boothby also informed him that he had received word from a "so-called grape. vine" that he [Doland] had joined the Union at one of its meetings. Boothby finally asked Doland to keep the conversation a secret. At the hearing Boothby admitted that on occasion he questioned employees about their union affiliation and admitted that he engaged in the above-described conversation with Doland. Although admitting the substance of the conversation he denied that he told Doland that-lie had received word through the "so-called grapevine" that he [Doland] had joined the Union. The Trial Examiner found that Boothby made all the statements ascribed to him above. -In view of the Trial Examiner's finding and Boothby's 900 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD admissions, and on the basis of the entire record, we find that the conversation occurred as testified to by Doland. Paul testified that in August 1938 Foreman Klein told him that the respondent "didn't care whether the union could pull men out of there or not, because . . they [the respondent] can always farm their work out." Klein denied that he made this statement. Klein testified that he talked to employees regarding the Union and that many employees asked him "what should they do." Klein told them, "You know what you got here, and you don't know what you are going to get. I think the firm is. treating you as best they could. I don't believe in union myself . . . I think you should stay with the firm." In view of Klein's admitted hostile union atti- tude, and activity, we find that he made the statement attributed to him by Paul. In August 1938 Oilier called William J. Hall, an employee, into his office and told him, "You know those union fellows [referring to Union officials], they are only in it for what they are getting,iout .of it; they just put in a petition for a raise." Hall said, "I happen to know about that. They didn't get their raise." Ollier replied, "Well, they are still getting big money: I imagine President Schussler [president of the Union] gets about a hundred' a week." Hall .an- swered, "Yes, he does, and . the organizers get $75 and expenses." Oilier stated that "you know I know all of those fellows There has been quite a bit of propaganda spread around through the plant. That is not fair to the firm.". Hall replied, "I don't know of any what I call propaganda being spread around, or lies. I don't know of anybody that is telling any lies." Ollier thereupon named [L. C.] Gruber [then an International Representative of the Union] as a union official who was spreading the "propaganda." Frank George. Gisser, an employee, testified that in September 1938 Klein asked him whether he was a "union man," and he answered that it was none of Klein's bu siness. Klein replied, "Never mind, we know, or we can find out if you are a union man or not." Klein denied that. he made these l statements. In view of Klein's admitted anti-union attitude and his activity against the Union as described above in connection with Paul's testimony, we agree with.the Trial Examiner's finding and credit the testimony of Gisser. During the period herein. described, the respondent secured the signatures of 'its employees-to an individual contract of employment. On July 15, 1938, Boothby called various groups of employees into the conference room, where he read to them a "profit sharing contract," which he had previously prepared, and requested them to sign it.-, ' Boothby testified that "our men had been given so many conflicting statements about what the firm was going to do , what it would not do, and what it was going to cease doing JAHN & OLLIER ENGRAVING CONIPANY 901 Under the contract the respondent agreed, inter alia, to provide steady, employment for 52 weeks per year during the term of the contract, vacations with pay, and payment of insurance and bonuses to employees. The employees in turn agreed "to give loyal,, skillful, continuous uninterrupted services satisfactory" to the respondent for 52 'reeks per year for 2 years,-while the respondent ,reserved. to.. itself the right "to immediately discharge any employee for breaking any clause of this contract" and to relieve itself of all liability under the contract if its business should be interrupted or cease operation, among other reasons, because of strikes or government regulations. The contract in substance was a restatement of the conditions under which the plant had operated since at least 1935. The benefits of the contract were limited to the employees who signed it, and no employee was eligible to sign until he had been. in the employ of the respondent continuously for 1 year. The contract was signed by all the photo-engravers except Raymond Paul. ' A short time prior to, the;'election 4 of November 30, and'December 1, 1938, a copy of the contract was placed under glass near the time clock. Another copy was kept in the respondent's office and was available for inspection by the employees. On August 31, 1938, the Union wrote to the respondent suggesting that it "refrain from Z5osting bulletins detrimental to your employees' .welfare and cease discouraging them in their lawful right to self- organization." The respondent did not answer this letter. The Union again wrote to the respondent on September, 8, 1938, stating that majority of the respondent's employees had designated the Union as their bargaining agent and that the Union was desirous of proving its majority. On September 10, 1938, the respondent an- swered and requested a list of the union members so that, it could verify the Union's claim of a majority. The respondent also' wrote : "Is it the desire of you gentlemen to represent our men,-who prove to be members of your Union,-in negotiating a new contract for their on' the termination of the present 'one, or do you plan to aid and abet them in breaching our existing contractual' relations?" On September 14, 1938, the Union replied that it would not submit a list of union members and that it did not intend to aid or abet any- one in breaching existing, contractual relations entered into properly and not in violation of or in conflict with the Act. The Union also requested the respondent to send it a copy of the contract. The re- spondent did not answer this letter. On October 5, 1938, the Union that I felt the only safe way to assure all of our employees exactly what we were going to do was to put it in writing, sign it, and make an agreement with them that was binding upon the firm." The contract was dated July 15, 1938, and was to remain in force for 2 years. It was retroactive, however, and became effective as of July 1. 1938. See footnote 5, infra.' 283035-42-voL 24-58 I 902 DECISIONS ,OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD wrote the. respondent and requested a meeting for the, purposes of collective bargaining. On October 10, 1938, the respondent answered that the Union could "hardly expect us to take your. unsupported statement to the effect that you represent a majority of our workmen, as .legal -authority for again requesting a meeting," and that ..until the Union would furnish the respondent with. satisfactory proof of its majority, the respondent would decline to meet with the Uiiion.5 The respondent posted on its bulletin board' from August. 26, 1938, to October 8, 1938, the following notice to its employees : As we have frequently stated to you verbally, We have no objections if you join the union, Chicago Yacht Club, fraternal orders, or any other organization (except communist) as long ,is, you perform your duties properly, but we again affirm it will NEVER be necessary for anyone to be a member of ANY organization to secure and retain a job with us. ' On November 22, 1938, Boothby sent a notice to the superintendent and foremen cautioning them "not to say or do anything with ,any of our employees which might be construed by the National Labor Relations Board as coercion, intimidation or interfering with the efforts of the Chicago Photo Engravers' Union to unionize our men." During November Foreman Klein had a conversation with-Paul. Paul testified that Klein told him that he could be earning. $60 ' a week, but the trouble is. you are cracking the whip." According to Paul, Klein explained that he was referring to "This union busi- ness." Several minutes later Paul asked Klein "how good" his chances were to make $60 per week. Paul quoted Klein as answer- ing that he did not know as "They [the respondent] don't know whether they can trust you, whether you are going to keep on organizing or not." Klein admitted that he had a conversation with Paul, but claimed that when Paul asked him if he could earn $60' a week, Klein stated first that it was a hard question to answer, and later that. he could not answer such questions. In view of Klein's - admittedly anti-union attitude and his activity against the Union, we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that he made the statements attributed to him by Paul. On October 20, 1938, the Union filed a petition for investigation and certification with the Regional Director (Case No. X111-11-266). Pursuant to.an agreement between the respondent and the Union, an election was held by the Regional. Director on November 30 and December 1, 1928. Of the 1.26 ballots cast, 49 ballots were in favor of the Union and 77 ballots were against the Union. Thereafter, the Union filed with the Regional Director objections and exceptions, to which the respondent filed a reply. The Regional Director conducted an informal hearing on the issues thus raised. On February 28,.1939, the Regional Director resigned. On April 24. 1939, the succeeding Regional Director ruled that in the absence of an agreement by the parties to the consent election agreement to permit seine person other than. the Regional Director named in the agreement to decide disputes arising thereunder, "the agreement for consent election' be treated as at an end by reason of the impossibility of the performance of all of the terns thereof." JAHN & OLLIER ENGRAVING COMPANY 903 Arthur. Lawrence Johnson, an apprentice half-tone operator, testi- fied that in the middle of November .1938 Martin J. G. Peterson, an assistant foreman, ,told him that it was common knowledge that the Union had many men out of work. ' Peterson further said that "if the plant went union, the union would insist on putting -some of those men in the places of the apprentices now working at Jahn & .Oilier, and the apprentices would probably be dropped out." Peter- son admitted that he does not approve of employees belonging to the Union. In view of Peterson's attitude toward the Union, we find that he made the statement attributed to him by Johnson. Walter Stephen Gaber, an apprentice photo-engraver, testified that about the middle of November 1938, Peterson said to him : "Well, Walter, we have been friends for a long time, and I don't, want to see anything happen "to you. I have just gotten word from the front office that if the union gets fifty-one per cent of the fellows to vote for them, and Jalin & Oilier doesn't sign up, the union will most probably call a strike and take, the fellows' who did sign up out on strike, and Jahn & Oilier will continue to work with the fellows that are:left, that is, who. are loyal to the company, then if the union pickets, and the situation gets too tough, well, Jahn Ollier will form a ,new company, a sort of cooperative company, in which each employee will be a,shareholder, and in that "case, all 'those who are out. on strike will be out of a job." Peterson denied that he had this conversation, although he admitted that he had spoken to Gaber oil one occasion about the Union. The Trial Ex- -aminer found Peterson's, denial to be unconvincing. We agree with the Trial Examiner and we find that Peterson made the statement attributed to him by Gaber. Samuel Tedeshi, a former employee of the respondent, testified 6 that about 2 days before the election of November 30 and Decem- ber 1, 1938,' Charles H. 'Zemke, his foreman, asked him if any union men had come to his house and 'talked to him. Upon receiving a negative answer, Zemke, according to Tedeshi, 'said that "If they do come, send them away and stick with the company. You always win in the long run if you stick with the company." The day after .the election, 'Zemke asked him how he had voted. When Tedeshi refused to answer; Zemke said "You should not be afraid to tell me if you: voted for the company." Zemke denied making these statements to Tedeshi. Zemke; however, admitted that he had daily conversations with Tedeshi, that he had talks with several ' em- ployees concerning the Union, and"" that he did not approve of the .i 8 This- is based upon 'a stipulation entered into at-the hearing between counsel for the respondent and the Board that' if Tedeshi were present , he would give the above testimony. Counsel for'Board stated that Tedeshi was in a C. C. C. camp in the State of-Oregon. See footnote 5, supra. 904 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Union "very much" because he "wouldn't have quit them" if he did. The Trial Examiner did not credit Zemke's denials. We agree with this conclusion and 'find that Zemke made the statements attributed to him by Tedeshi. About January 15, 1939, Frank Rastetter, a new employee, had a conversation with Boothby, who asked him about his previous em- ployment. Rastetter's testimony may be summarized.. as follows : Rastetter told Boothby that he had previously been employed in a union shop in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and that he worked only 5 days because too many union men were out of work. Boothby said, "That is a dirty trick. That is the way the union works." Boothby then offered the information that "we had a plant- in Toledo and we had some union trouble down there. Before we let the union come in we closed the plant down." Referring to the present em - plot ees of the respondent, Boothby remarked that the men- "were getting a good salary and they had been treated nice." Rastetter replied that "Those men don't know how well they are off." Boothby then- said: "That is the idea. When you get. down to the plant you mention to them and tell them about your troubles that you had in Pittsburgh and how the union treated you." Boothby did not deny that Rastetter's version of the conversation was substantially correct. He testified„ however, in connection -with the respondent's Toledo plant that he told Rastetter that "we had lost a large sum of money down there and conditions-the union apparently organized the men and brought about conditions which would cause even more loss of money, so we decided there was no use to continue." The Trial Examiner accepted Rastetter's version of the conversation. We agree with the Trial Examiner and find that Boothby made the statements attributed to him by Rastetter. On January 27, 1939, when Frank Joseph Graff started to work for the respondent, according to Graff's undenied testimony which we accept as true, Boothby told him that "they [the respondent] didn't favor the union, and that before they turned union .that they would close down the shop." In the summer of 1939 Ross came into the half-tone etching.de- partment and stated in a loud voice to Foreman Albin that an engraving company "went bankrupt." Ross further- said, according to the Iindenied testimony of Paul, "That's the second union shop that went bankrupt in the last week, there is going to be others.". Prior to January 15,'1940, Rastetter asked Superintendent Ross 'for an increase in wages. About January 15, 1940, Ross referred him to Boothby about his request. Rastetter went to Boothby's office and Boothby asked him "if the union bad been bothering me [Rastetter] lately." Rastetter answered, "No, nothing to amount . JAHN & OLLIER ENGRAVING COMPANY 905 to much excepting that they have been sending me a lot of letters." Boothby admitted telling Rastetter, "Don't worry about those letters. They have been- sending those for the last 30 years." Rastetter received an increase in wages. On January 23, 1940, 6 days before the hearing herein, the re- spondent-posted' on its -bulletin board the following notice. to its employees : For years the Chicago Photo Engravers' Union, Local No. 5, has tried unsuccessfully to "organize" our employees. For more than two years the Union has been complaining to the Labor Board that its lack of success has been due to "un- fair labor practices" by the company: Starting Monday, January 29th, the Labor Board is going to hold a hearing to inquire into the Union's charges. The company will, of course, meet every bit of evidence that is offered against it. The company will, of course, vigorously defend its good name before the" Labor Board-and, if necessary-in the courts. If in the end the court should hold the company has engaged in any "unfair labor practices," the net result would be that the courts would order the company to cease and desist such unfair labor practices thereafter. The reason the Union has been unable to "organize" our em- ployees is because our employees have not wanted to be organized by the Union. So long as our employees do not want to be organized by the Union, there is no law, no Labor Board, and no court that will or can require them to be "organized" by the Union. These proceedings may be pending for a long time-such pro- ceedings have been known to drag out for several years-but the pendency of these proceedings will in no way interfere with the continuation of our policies or our relations with our employees 8 This notice is posted so that all our employees may know ex- actly what is the nature of the proceedings before the Labor Board and what they involve. JAHN cC OLLIER ENGRAVING COMPANY, /s/ C. S. BOOTZ-IRY, President. 1/23/40 B. Conclusions • We are satisfied from all the evidence that concurrently with the revival of union activity in the plant, the respondent reaffirmed the " Italics supplied. 906 DECISIONS OF` NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD anti-union policy that it had maintained prior to 1933 and embarked upon a course of conduct designed to prevent,, if possible, the unioil organization of its `employees; "A Message To Eiilployees" which the respondent posted on August 17, 1939, purporting to apprise the employees of their rights under the Act, to • present "actual facts," and -to prevent "misunderstanding," is patently distorted, and mis leading. The "Questions and Answers" contained in the "Message!", are confined almost entirely to advising the employees that they are not required to.join labor organizations or to seek the benefits of col- lective bargaining and to stating the rights of the employer left un- affected by the Act. The "Message" is conspicuously silent with respect to any exposition of the rights guaranteed to employees by the Act and of the unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act. Con- sidered in conjunction, with the anti-union activities of the respond- ent's officers and supervisory employees which followed, it is plain that the posting of the "Message" was calculated to stand as a warn- ing, that the employees might expect` neither the protection that the Act affords nor the benefits of collective bargaining that the Act. encourages. The respondent contends that the statements contained in the above- described "Message" and the statements which we have found above to have been made by the respondent's officers, superintendent, fore- men, and assistant foreman,- were mere statements. of advice and opinion which-are not proscribed by the Act and in the expression of which the respondent is protected by the constitutional guarantees; of freedom of speech and of the press. We find no merit in the re- spondent's contention. As we said in Matter of Ford, Motor. Conn- - pany and, International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, Local 325: io Whether the words or actions of an employer constitute inter- ference, restraint, or coercion, within the meaning of the Act, must be judged, not as an abstract proposition, but in ' the light 9 See Matter of The Perfection Steel Body Company (a. k. a. The Perfection Burial Vault Company) and Local 1151, International Association of Machinists, A. F. of L., 23 N. L. It. B., 99; Matter of Jasper Blackburn Products Corporation and District No. 9, International Association of Machinists, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, 21 N. L. It. B.,. 1240; Matter of Moore-Lowry Flour Mills Company and Flour Mill and Cereal Workers Union No. £•0601, Affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, 21 N. L. R. B. 1040; Matter of Link Belt Company and Lodge 1604 of Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, through the Steel Workers Organizing Committee affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization, 12 N. L. It. B. 854; Matter of Goshen Rubber and Manufacturing Company and United Rubber Workers of America, Local #124, 11 N. L. R. B. 1346, enf'd as mod. N. L. R. B. v. Goshen Rubber and Manufacturing Company, 110 F. (2d) 432 (C. C. A_-7) ; Matter of Nebel Knitting Company, Inc. and American Federation of Hosiery Workers, 6 N. L. R. B. 284, enf'd N. L. R. B. v. Nebel Knit- ting Cc mpany,- Inc., 103 F. (2d) 594 (C. C.'A. 4) ; Matter of Mansfield Mills, Inc. and Textile Workers Organizing Committee, 3 N. L. It. B. 901. See also, Matter of West Texas Utilities Company and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 22 N. L. It. B. 522. 10 23 N. L. R. B. 342. JAI N & OLLIER ENGRAVING' COMPANY 907 of 'the economic realities of the 'employer-employee relationship. It need hardly be stressed that the dominant position of an em- ployer,_ who exercises the power of economic life and death over his 'employees, gives-to an employer's statements, whether or,not ostensibly couched as argument or 'advice,, ,an immediate and compelling effect that they would not possess' if addressed to economic equals " Under the, circumstances here present the, asserted constitutional guarantees do not afford the respondelt license to engage in the inter- ference, restraint, . and coercion which resulted from the impact of the anti-union statements upon the minds of its employees.12 As we have described above, the employees were advised that they need not exercise the rights guaranteed by the Act:. Apprentices were warned that they might lose their jobs if, the Union .succeeded in organizing the plant; an employee was asked 'to, "do a, favor for" the respondent by reporting upon. union activities; an employee was' advised not to "leave them [the Union] get in your life and ruin your life." The respondent's president suggested to the employees that "they [the Union] don't want you, they want your dues," while another officer .1 See N. L.'R. B. v. Falk Corporation, 102 F. ( 2d) 383, 389 (C. C. A. 7), mod. on other grounds, 308 U. S. 453, where the Court said : ' ' . The position of the employer is a most delicate one. Surely , he.has the right to his dews And yet, the voice of authority may; by tone inflection , as well as by the substance of the words uttered , provoke fear and awe quite as readily as it may speak '.fatherly advice. The position of the employer , where, as here, there Is present genuine and sincere respect and regard , carries such weight and'influence that his words may be coercive when they would 'not be so if the relation ' of master and servant did not exist: - See" also;' Virginian By. Co. v . System Federation No. 40,- et al.,, 84' F. (2d)• 641,, 643 (C., C. A. 4) afi'd 300 U. S . 515, where the Court said 'It must be remembered in this connection , however , that any sort of influence exerted by an employer upon an employee , dependent upon his employment for means of live- lihood, may very easily become undue, in that it will coerce the employee 's will in favor 'of what the employer desires against his better judgment as to what is really in the 'best interest of himself and his fellow employees. 12. See"Matter of Ford Motor Company and International Union, United Automobile Workers of A'merioa; Local 425, 23 N. L. R. B . 342;. Matter of -Ford Motor Company and United Automobile Workers of America, Local No . 825, 23 N: L. R.* B.' 548; Matter of FordMotor ' Company and United 'Automobile Workers of Amerioit. Local 440, 19 N. L. if. B., 732.; Matter, of Rockford Mitten & Hosiery Company and The American. Federation of Hosiery Workers through Textile Workers Organizing Committee, affiliated with the Com- mittee for Industrial Organization, 16 N. L. R. B. 501 -; Matter of Ford Motor-Com- pany and International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, 14,-N. L. R. B. 346; Matter of The Dow Chemical Company and United Mine Workers of America, District No. '50, 13 ; N L. R. B. 993. , ' See also the following applicable court cases : N. L. R. B. v. Falk Corporation, 102 F. (2d) 383 (,C. C,.A. 7), aff'd in 308.U. S. 453; N. L. R. B. v. Colten, 105 F. ( 2d).179 . (C: C. A. 6) ; N. L.R. 'B. . v. Hopwood Retinning Co., 98 F. ( 2d) 97 (C. C.. A. 2) ; Virginia Ferry Corp. V. N. i.,R.,B., 101,F. (2d) 103 (C. C. A. 4) ; N. L. R. B, v. Stackpole Carbon Co., .105 F. (2d) 8), cert. den . 308 U. S. 605; N. L. R. B. v. Nebel Knitting Company, 103 F. (2d). 594; (C. C.yA.•4) ; Republic Steel Corporation V. N. L. R. B., 107 F. (2d) 472 (C. C. A. 3), cert. „den.,.60 $. Ct. 806; Montgomery. Ward & Co., Inc. v. N. L.. R. B., 107 F. (2d) 555 (C. C. A. 7) N. L. R. B. v. Sunshine Mining -Company,.-110,F. (2d) 780 (C:,C. A. 9). 908 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of the respondent referred to the union organizers as "poison ped- dlers." An employee was reminded that he had a wife and children who should be considered in his choice between the Union and the respondent; employees were questioned about their union member- ship and union organizers were disparaged. A union member was told that "They [the respondent] don't know whether they can. trust you, whether'you-ar--e''going to -keep on organizing, or not"; another employee was advised that "You always win in the long run if you stick with the company." An employee was told that the respondent closed one of its plants "before we let the union come in," and another employee, at the time he was hired, was advised that the respondent did not favor the Union and would close the plant "before they turned union." It is plain from the record that these statements were neither in- tended to be, nor were they in effect, mere expressions of advice and opinion directed toward refuting the allegedly false propaganda of the union organizers but rather a concentrated effort on the part. of the re- spondent to destroy that freedom which.the Act guarantees employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization. We find it im- possible to believe that these statements, coining from the employer and propounded to employees under circumstances indicating that they should take heed, were merely directed to their reason and were. in- tended to influence only their mental' processes, without intimidatory or coercive effect. No employee could fail to understand that if he disregarded the warnings he might find himself in difficulties with the respondent. These statements made by the respondent's officials and supervisory employees under the circumstances described above naturally and inevitably engendered in the employees a fear for their economic security should they seek to exercise the rights granted by 'the Act 13 The respondent further contends that since its foremen and assist- ant foremen have' no power to hire or discharge and since they are eligible for 'membei°ship' in the Union; -they, are, permitted under the Act to participate in. the organizational activity of the employees nor may the respondent be held to account for their acts or state- ments. We-do not agree that these factors are sufficient to absolve the respondent from responsibility -for the acts and statements of, such employees. Despite the absence of authority to hire or dis- charge, it is plain from the record that the foremen and assistant 13 See Matter of Brown Shoe Company, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiary , Moench Tanning Company, Inc. and National Leather 'Workers Association Local. #ty;. affiliated with the 'Committee for Industrial Organization, 22 N. L. R. B. 1080; Matter of Rockford Mitten & Hosiery Company and The American Federation of Hosiery Workers through Textile Workers Organizing Committee,' affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organi- zation, 16 N. L. R. B., No.'53 ; Matter .of Foote Brothers Gear and Machine Corporation and United Office and Professional Workers of America, No. it, , 14 N. L . R. B. 1045. JAI-IN & OLLIER ENGRAVING COMPANY 909 foremen exercise substantial supervision over the work of the ordi- nary employees and represent the management in its relations with such employees.14 Moreover, neither- the right of the foremen and . assistant foremen to engage, in concerted activities, nor their eligi- bility to membership in the Union excuses the respondent's failure to restrain them from enlisting its prestige in an invasion of the field of self-organization-a field of activity reserved exclusively to the employees.16 The foremen and the assistant foreman, in discourag- ing union affiliation and activity, so far as their subordinates knew, purported to state the respondent's policies and views with respect' to the Union. The respondent does not deny that they were properly stated. Indeed, that they were in fact the respondent's policies and views is clear from the conduct of the respondent's superintendent and executive officers.1° We find that the foremen and assistant foreman are supervisory employees for-whose statements, helein.-the respondent is_chargeable.17 It is plain, in the light of all the evidence, that the respondent utilized'the profit-sharing contract that it offered to its employees in July 1938 as but another weapon to offset. the union organization of its employees. We have observed that under the contract the employees agree to give "continuous uninterrupted service" satis- '" See Swift and Company v. N. L. R. B., 106 F. (2d) 87 (C. C. A. 10), enf'g as mod. Matter of Swift & Company and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local No. 641, and United Packing House Workers Local Industrial Union No. 300, 7 N. L. R. B. 269 ; N. L. R. B. v. The A. S. Abell Company, 97 F. (2d) 951 (C. C. A. 4), enf'g as mod. Matter of The A. S. Abell Company and International Printing and Pressmen's Union, Baltimore Branch, Baltimore Web Pressmen's Union, No. 31, 5 N. L. R. B. 644. Nothing in the Act limits an employer's responsibility for the anti-union activity of its supereiiory • employees to employees having-the power to- hire and discharge . - See Inter- national Association of Machinists,. Tool and Die Makers Lodge..No. 35 affiliated with the International Association of•Machini.sts, et al . v. N. L. R. B., 110 F. (2d) 29 C. A. for D. C.)., enf'g Matter of The Serrick Corporation and International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 459, 8 N. L. R. B . 621, where the Court said : The statute , we think purposely , does not define the particular methods or agents by which the employer may intermeddle unlawfully. Had it done so, easy escape would have been opened from the Act's provisions. Nothing in it requires that such repre- sentation be limited to officials having any particular kind or degree of authority, such as "hiring and firing," "disciplinary power," or even " supervisory capacity." See also Virginia Ferry Corp. Y. N. L. R. B., 101 F. (2d)•103 (C. C. A. 4), enf'g as mod. Matter of Virginia Ferry Corporation and Masters, Mates and Pilots of America, No. 9, et al., S N. L. R. B. 730. '? See Matter of Ford Motor Company and United Automobile Workers of America, Local No. -325, 23 N. L. R. B. 342; Matter of.Indiana & Miolzigan,.Blectric„ Company,. and, Inter- national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local B-9, 20 N L. R. B. 989; Matter of Tennessee Copper Company and Textile Workers Organizing Committee, 9 N. L. R. B. 118. 16 See Matter of Jefferson Lake Oil Company, Incorporated and Sulphur Workers Local Union No. 21195, 16 N. L. R. B. 355. Cf. Matter of Crown Central Petroleum Corpora- tion and Oil Workers International Union, Local No.. 237, 24 N. L. R. B. 217. 17 As we have noted above, on November 22, 1938, the respondent notified its superintend- ent and foremen not to interfere unlawfully in the organizational activities of the em- ployees. It is plain , however, that these instructions were not followed, nor did the respondent "take effective means to stop repeated violations of the Act." Swift & Company v. Al. L. R. B., 106 F. (2d) 87, 93 (C. C. A. 10). 910 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD factory to the respondent for two years, the respondent has a right "to immediately discharge any employee for breaking any clause of this contract," and if the business of the respondent shall be inter- rupted or cease operation during the life of the contract, among other reasons, because of strikes or government regulations; the respondent is relieved of liability under the contract. Thus the employees have` renounced the right to engage, in collective activity for the purposes of collective bargaining fora period of two years and have agreed, to forsake all rights as employees should they strike during this period. Clearly these restrictions upon the exercise of employees' rights under the Act, when- imposed as a result of individual bar- gaining, constitute unlawful restraints which the Act proscribes... This contract, prepared by. the respondent's president and admit- tedly a restatement of the working conditions under which the re- spondent's plant had operated since at least 1935, was submitted to the employees. at the height of the union, campaign for membership as a substitute for collective bargaining. Less than two months later, raising the contract as a bar to the collective bargaining requested by the Union, the respondent inquired whether the Union was desir- ing to negotiate a new contract. upon the expiration of the profit- sharing contract (which would not, expire before July 1940) or whether the Union- planned "to aid and abet them [the employees] in breaching our existing contractural relations." Later in the fall of 1938, and shortly before the.conduct of the consent election by the Regional Director,"' the respondent for the first'time posted a `copy of the contract on; its. bulletin board. It. is apparent that the re- spondent executed the profit-sharing contract for the purpose of in- ducing the employees to refrain from joining the Union 'and for the purpose of interfering with their right to •bargain collectively,= and that the contract had such effect. The respondent argues that it offered the profit-sharing contract to its employees because the employees "had-been given so • many conflicting statements as to what respondent was going to do.; and what it was going to cease doing"; that the contract was "substan- tially' a restatement of the terms of employment for the- past few years"; that "these terms of employment were `very favorable' to re-. spondent's employees according to the Trial Exaininer's' own find- ing'.'; that "The only conceivable way in , which the profit-sharing, contract would have `thwarted' the ' union or `discouraged 'meniber- ship,in the union' would be that-the union had been organizing and obtaining members by misrepresentation, and deceit" ; and that "if the mere terms of the contract constituted unfair labor practices, respondent has been committing such practices for years." The re- ie See footnote 5, supra. - - JAHN '& OLLIER ENGRAVING COMPANY 911 spondent's arguments constitute an implicit admission that the profit- sharing contract was offered to the employees in order to thwart them in the exercise of their right to collective bargaining. Unquestion- ably an employer is not precluded by the Act from bestowing upon his employees substantial benefits and -concessions with respect to working conditions. When, however, the employer grants such benefits and concessions with the purpose and effect of discouraging his employees from joining a labor organization and otherwise ex- ercising 'the right to self-organization and collective bargaining, and where the benefits and concessions are granted in the form.-of indi vidual contracts which, in effect, preclude the employees from exer- cising their collective bargaining rights guaranteed by the Act, then the employer's. activity falls within the conduct proscribed by the Act. We find that the respondent's conduct in proffering the profit- sharing contract to individual employees under the circumstances described above, constituted a deliberate attempt to destroy the Union and to foreclose' its employees from- exercising the right to self-or- ganization and collective bargaining guaranteed to them under the Act.- . Having thus successfully put into operation an effective anti-union policy and hiving successfully impeded the Union's organizational efforts, the respondent forcefully reiterated this "policy"' when it posted on its bulletin board 6 days before-the hearing herein a notice 'to employees stating''that the pendency of the Board's proceedings "will in no way interfere with the continuation of our policies or our relations with our. employees." We find that the respondent, by the anti-union statements and activities of Oilier, Boothby, Ross, Albin, Esplin, Klein, Peterson, and Zemke, by posting its "A.Message To Employees," by offering to its employees an individual profit-sharing contract, and by posting its notice of January 23, 1940, under the circumstances and condi- .tions,as,described herein, has.interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights-guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. 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 re- 29 See Matter of Williams Manufacturing Company, Portsmouth, Ohio, and United Shoe Workers of America, Portsmouth, Ohio, 6 N. L. R. B. 135; National Licorice Company V. N. L. -R. B., 60 S. Ct. 569, aff'd -as- mod. 104'F. (2d) 655 (C. C. A. 2), enf'g.as mod. Matter of National Licorice Company and Bakery and Confectionery Workers International Union of America, Local Union 405, Greater New York and Vicinity, 7 N. L. R. B. 537; Matter of.The Duffy Silk Company and Silk Throws tars Union, Local 81, Textile Workers Union of America, 19 N. L. R. B. 37; Matter of Jefferson Lake Oil Company, Incorporated. and Sulphur Workers Local Union No. 21195, 16.N. L. R. B. 355. 9.12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD spondent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial 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 engaged in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist from such prac- tices and to take certain affirmative action which we find necessary to, effectuate the policies of the Act. We have found that the profit-sharing contract. interfered with the employees' rights under the Act. We shall order the respondent to give written notice to each employee who signed the.profit-sharing contract that such contract imposes a restraint upon the individual employees in the exercise of their right under the Act to collective bargaining and other concerted activity, and that, therefore the re- spondent will cease and desist from in any manner continuing, en- forcing, or attempting to enforce it. Our order, however, is not intended either to interfere with the employees' rights under the .profit-sharing arrangement and any other substantive features of the contract or to operate as a bar to collective bargaining with respect to such aspects of the contract.20 Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CON CLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Chicago Photo-Engravers Union, Local #5, is a labor organiza- tion, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the re- spondent 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. 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 Jahn & Oilier Engraving Company, Chicago, Illinois, and its officers, agents, suc- cessors, and assigns shall: 20 See National Licorice Comi aoay v. N. L. R . B., 60 S . Ct. 569. JAI-IN & OLLIER ENGRAVING COMPANY 913 1. Cease and desist from : (a) In any manner interfering with, restra.iniing, 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 purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or. protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act ; (b) In any manner continuing, enforcing, or attempting to en- force the profit-sharing contract of July 15, 1938, without prejudice, however, to the assertion by its employees of any legal rights they may have acquired under such contract. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a). Notify in writing each employee who signed the profit-sharing contract of July 15, 1938, that such contract imposes a restraint upon the individual employees in the exercise of their right under the Act to collective bargaining and other concerted. activity and that therefore the respondent will cease and desist from in any manner continuing, enforcing, or attempting to enforce the proft-sharing contract; (b) Post immediately in conspicuous places at its plant, and main- tain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating: (1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to. cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) of this Order; and (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) of this Order; - (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith.