Bemis Bro. Bag Co.

In the Matter of BEMIS BRO. BAG COMPANY and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH THE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS Case No. C-1657.-Decided December 10, 1940 Jurisdiction : paper bag manufacturing industry. Unfair labor practices In General: responsibility of employer for acts of supervisory employees. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: anti-union statements ; interrogation con- cerning union activities ; interfering with collective bargaining rights by issuing notice foreclosing certain subjects as matters to-be negotiated ; dismissal of cer- tain allegations. Discrimination: allegations of discrimination dismissed. Remedial Orders : cease and desist interference, restraint, and coercion. Mr. Wallace Cooper, for the Board. - Jones, Hooker, Gladney & Grand, by Mr. Frank Y. Gladney, of St. Louis, Mo., for the respondent. Mr. IsadoTre Katz and Mr. David Jaffee, of New York City, for the Union. Mr. Bliss Daffan, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Charges and amended charges having been duly filed on October 23, 1939, and May 18, 1940, respectively, by Textile Workers Union of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, ,herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region (St. Louis, Missouri), issued its complaint dated May 24, 1940, against 'Bemis Bro. Bag Company, St. Louis, Missouri, herein called the re- spondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engag- ing in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the com- plaint and'accompanying notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent and the Union. 28 N. L. R. B., No. 72. 430 - BEMIS BRO. BAG COMPANY 431 Concerning the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in sub- stance, that the respondent had discriminated in regard to the hire, and tenure of employment of Aubrey Wolverton and Anuel Goodrich, because' of their membership in the Union and because they had en- gaged in concerted activities with other employees for purposes of mutual aid and protection and collective bargaining, and that the re- spondent thereby discouraged membership in the Union. The com- plaint further alleged that the respondent by the foregoing and other acts interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exer- cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On June '5, 1940, the respondent filed its answer in which-it admitted the allegations of the complaint as to the character of its business. but denied that it had engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in St. Louis, Missouri, on June 10, 11, and 12, 1940, before R. N. Denham, the Trial Examiner. duly designated by the Board. The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel who 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 conclusion of the Board's case, the Trial Examiner granted a motion of the Board's counsel to conform the complaint to the proof. This ruling is hereby affirmed. Motions were then made, on behalf of the respondent to dismiss-the complaint as a whole, and specifically, to dismiss the allegations thereof pertaining to : (1) the lay-off of Aubrey Wolverton; (2) the discharge of Anuel Goodrich; (3) the acts and conduct of the-respondent's officers and agents in connection with an election held on August 23, 1939; and (4) the allegations of anti-union activities of the respondent as asserted in the complaint in "general terms." The motion to dismiss the complaint with respect to the discriminatory lay-off of Aubrey Wolverton was granted by the Trial Examiner and the other motions denied with leave to the re- spondent to renew them at the close of the hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing the respondent renewed its motions and the Trial Ex- aminer reserved ruling thereon.' During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made numerous other rulings on motions and on obj ec- tions to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed these rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. After the close of the hearing, pursuant to leave granted to all parties by the Trial Examiner, the respondent filed a brief with the Trial Examiner. On August 15, 1940, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served upon the re- 'Subsequently in his Intermediate Report the Trial Examiner, except as , otherwise disposed of therein , denied the respondent 's motions. 432 DECISIONS OE NATIONAL ' LABOR RELATIONS BOARD spondent and the Union. He found that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain 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 and take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act. He further recommended that the allegations in the com- plaint relative to certain other alleged unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( 1) of the Act and the allegations that the re- spondent had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act , be dismissed. Thereafter the respondent and the Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report ; both parties also filed briefs with the Board. The Board has considered the exceptions filed by the respondent and the Union and, except as they are consistent with the findings of fact, conclusions of law, 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 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Bemis Bro. Bag Company , the respondent, is a Missouri corporation having its principal office and place of business at St. Louis, Missouri, and approximately 20 plants located throughout the United States. The respondent maintains two plants in St. Louis, Missouri, one known as the Fourth Street plant , where its office is located and where it is engaged in the manufacture , sale, and distribution of textile and paper bags, and the other, known as the Barton Street plant , where it is en- gaged in the business of spinning , weaving, and processing fabric to be used in the manufacture of bags at the Fourth Street plant. This proceeding is concerned with activities of the respondent at its Fourth Street plant, herein called the plant, where it employs approximately 375 production and maintenance employees. The principal raw materials used by the respondent at the plant are cotton cloth, burlap, paper , and asphalt and rubber substances. The value of all raw materials purchased by the respondent during. 1939 for use at the plant was in excess of $1,500,000. Ninety per cent of these materials were purchased and shipped to the plant from outside the State of Missouri . During the same year the finished products of the plant were of a value of more than $2,000;000. Approximately 70 per cent of its products were shipped from the plant to points outside the State of Missouri. BEMIS BRO. BAG COMPANY II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED 433 Textile Workers Union of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to membership production and maintenance employees of the respond- ent at the plant, excluding supervisory and office employees. . III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PR \CTICES A. Interference, r•estr°aint, and coercion The first organizational activity among the respondent's employees. at the, plant began in 1937 when several of the employees joined the Union. It was not, however, until January 1939 that the Union instituted an active organizational campaign among the employees at the plant. Immediately thereafter the respondent began a def- inite campaign of disparaging the Union and discouraging mem- bership therein. According to the testimony of Frank Clouser, an employee, on February 17, 1939, James DeMent, foreman of the printing, bag,. and baling departments, said to him, "I hear you are going up and sign up with the union." Clouser replied that he was going to a Union meeting to "see what it is all about." That Iiight`Clouser'joined the Union. The next day Clouser requested DeMent for a "bonus" which was due him.' According to Clouser, DeMent approved the "ticket" which would entitle Clouser to the bonus, advised Clouser of the amount'he had allowed him, and added, "When the union gets in here I can not do that." Clouser replied, "You are still foreman when- the Union gets in here and if you can give me that now I don't see why you can't after the Union gets in here." Clouser testified that shortly thereafter DeMent attempted to demonstrate to, him, with certain figures how Clouser "was losing money by, joining the union."' Clouser testified that his conversation with DeMent on this occasion. lasted an hour. DeMent, .who admitted at the hearing that he had had numerous conversations with Clouser and others concerning- the Union, testified that "Clouser always instigated the conversa- tion concerning the unions" and denied the remarks attributed to. him by Clouser. The Trial Examiner did not credit his denial and found, as we do, on the basis of evidence as to other, similar state- ments made by DeMent, that the conversations between DeMent and Clouser took place substantially as testified to by Clouser. DeMent did not confine his anti-union discussions to Clouser. John Zobrisky, an employee in the baling department, testified that 2 Machine operators in the respondent 's employ receive a bonus of 6 cents per 1,000 yards of material passing through their machines in addition to their megular hourly rates, of pay 434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in the latter part of January 1939, about a week after he had joined the Union, DeMent told him that he (DeMent) %' as "surprised that some of his intelligent workers joined the [7nion." DeMent denied that he had made this statement. The Trial Examiner did not credit his denial and found, as we do, that DeMent made the state- ment substantially as testified to by Zobrisky. Walter Moore, an employee in one of DeMent's departments, testi- fied that in January 1939, on the day after Moore had joined the Union, he and another employee were told by the assistant foreman that DeMent wanted to see them in the locker room; that when Moore got to the locker. room, DeMent• told him that he knew that he had joined the Union and that he (DeMent) "didn't see what the union can get us, that if the company wanted to do anything for us it would go ahead and do it without having the union in it." As to this conversation, DeMent testified as follows: He [Moore] came up to me and began talking and finally drifted into union conversation and tried to explain to me his reason for joining, and I said "I don't care, either way would suit me, and it don't make any difference, and I know all about the union, and that is your privilege , if you see fit to join it, belong to it, that is your privilege." DeMent did not' deny that on the occasion of his-'conversatiom`he had sent the assistant foreman to fetch Moore, nor did the respondent call the assistant foreman as a witness to deny that such was the case. The Trial Examiner did not credit DeMent's version of the conversation and, on the basis of evidence as to other similar state- ments made by DeMent , accepted Moore's version of the incident, as we do, as correctly stating what occurred. In February 1939 the respondent posted at the plant a notice to its employees ; which stated, inter alia: 3 Union Mblembersliip.-Each employee may join or may not join any labor organization, according to his or her individual wish. Whether you join or refrain from joining will not make the slightest difference in your employment with the company. The Closed Shop.-You need not join any organization to hold a job with Bemis. The Company believes the so-called ,'closed shop" is not consistent with the right of each individual 3 When early in 1936 the employees at the respondent's San Francisco plant manifested an interest in self-organizational activities , the respondent posted a similar notice at that plant. Thereafter, as employees at other plants of the respondent evidenced similar interest , the respondent posted similar notices. BEMIS BRO . 'BAG-COMPANY 435, employee to make up his own mind regarding union member- ship. If you have heard that you must join any ,organization in order to hold your job, you should disregard the rumor because it is incorrect. .The Check-Off.-The matter of union dues is an individual arrangement between the employee and the union to which he belongs: Our company will take no part in the collection of such dues. You may disregard as false any statement that Bemis will deduct union dues from pay of employees. Freedom of Discussion With Management.-Employees in- dividually or collectively are free to, see the management on any matter which is troubling them, or to call to the attention of the management any condition which may appear to them to be operating to their disadvantage .. . Rates Of .Pay.-It is the policy of our company to maintain rates on the basis of fairness to the individual for the work he is doing ... The cost of wages must be included in the sales prices of our products and this wage cost must be such as to permit the profitable sale of our products, thus insuring continuous operation of the factory, which is what we all desire. Hours and Overtime.-It is the policy at this plant to pay time and one-half to production workers on hourly or piece work basis for all work in excess of eight hours per day or 40 hours per week, and for production work on January 1, May 30, July 4, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and December 25. This notice, timed to coincide with the organizational campaign of the Union, clearly indicated to the employees the respondent's antipathy to the Union. It represented that the respondent's em- ployees could expect no benefits. from affiliation with a labor organi- zation. At a time when the Union had not asked the respondent for either a closed shop or a check-off, and indeed, had made no demands of the respondent, they paragraphs of the notice condemning the closed shop and check-off and relative to rates of pay and hours of employ- ment were gratuitous in nature, coercive in effect, and intimated clearly that all employment policies, had already been fixed by the respondent and that attempts by the Union, to secure changes in rates of pay might have dire consequences. By this notice they respondent indicated to its employees the futility of that which the Act is designed to encourage-collective bargain- ing with respect to terms and conditions of employment. The notice, posted when it was, had the purpose of anticipating and denying to employees possible advantages to be derived from collective bargain- ing negotiations. It not only counseled futility, but also, to the em- 413597-42-vol 28-29 436 DECISIONS OF -NATIONAL' LABOR 'RELATIONS BOARD ployees, was an unmistakable indication of-the respondent's hostility toward their ,self-organization 4 We have frequently had occasion to consider notices of similar import to the one here in issue,and have uniformly held that such notices, coming at a time when a union is seeking to establish itself as a collective bargaining • agent, are attempts on the part of the employer to obstruct and prevent self-organization of the employees and their affiliation with and continued membership in a labor organ- ization and as such constitute an unlawful interference with the rights of such employees under the Act.,' In-the instant case, it is plain that in posting the notice in question the respondent was motivated by the hope that its employees would reject the Union, and the notice could have been understood by the employees only as a manifestation of the respondent's desire that, they refrain from organization.(, DeMent continued his anti-union activities in the summer and fall of 1939. Zobrisky testified 'that during the summer' DeMent told him that the union organizers were nothing "but a.bunch of crooks." DeMent,. at the hearing, recalled the conversation referred to but denied having referred to the organizers as a "bunch of crooks." In view of the many instances in the record evidencing DeMent's antagonism towards the Union, however, we find, as did the Trial Examiner; that the remarks were made substantially as testified'to by Zobrisky. - Clouser testified that in October 1939 he had the following conversa- tion with'De.Ment : - . ... he started talking to me about how the company liked my work and what the company had lined ' up for me if I had stuck with the company, and I said, "Jim, how do you' figure I' am not sticking with the company?_ I try to do my work as good as Fever did." He said, "If you hadn't joined up with the union." I said, "I am sticking -with the company and I have to do my work, in fact I- have to watch myself closer and do better work, and I don't see why when they put a notice on the bulletin board and they Government is in back of it "we can, 4 See Matter of, Roberti Brothers, Inc and Furniture Workers Union, Local 1561, t N. L. R B . 925; Matter of Blue Bell-Globe Manufacturing Company and Amalgamated Clothing, Workers of America, 24 N. L, R. B. 126 ; Matter of The Yale & Towne Mann- faeturing Company and Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, Lodge No. 1647, through the Steel Workers Organizing Committee, af- filiated with the Committee for Industrial Organization, 17 N. L. R. B. 666. See N. L R. B. vs._ Elkland Leather Co ., 114 F. (2d) 221 (C. C. A. 3), ent'g. 8 N L R B 519, cert'denied , November 25,,1940; Matter of Adams Brothers Manifold Printing Company, doing business as Adams ' Brothers Salesbook Company, and Topeka Typographical Union, No. 121, affiliated with the American, Federation of Labor, 17 N. L. It. B. 974; Blue Bell-Globe Manufacturing -Company and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, 24 N. L. R. B. 126. e See Matter of Blue Bell-Globe Manufacturing Company , and Amalgamated Clothing Ivor.&P,s of A merica, 24 N. L. It. B. 126. BEMIS 'BRO. BAG COMPANY 437 not join the union," and he said, "I stuck with the company, and I got a good job, and Roy Hopwood upstairs, he got a good job sticking with the company, and he has a good job by sticking with the company." As with the other anti-union statements attributed to DeMent, he denied having made the statements quoted by Clouser. However, in view of DeMent's admitted numerous conversations with Clouser and others concerning the Union and his' obvious disapproval of it, his denial cannot be credited. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, -that the conversation took place substantially as testified to by Clouser. DeMent was not, the only supervisory official of the respondent who engaged in anti-union activities. Aubrey Wolverton, an employee, testified that shortly before he joined the Union on June 17, 1939, William Case, foreman of the manufacturing and waterproofing department, said to him, referring to they Union, "Well they can all join that wants to, but I will guarantee you one thing, there will be no more bonus paid." While Case denied having conversed with employees concerning the Union, we credit Wolverton's testimony concerning this conversation and find that, just as DeMent had earlier indicated. to Clouser that he "was' losing money by joining the Union," Case threatened Wolverton with a loss of pay in the event that he joined the Union. Anuel Goodrich, another employee, testified that in May or June 1939, three'or"four months after he had joined the Union, Case ap- proached him and said, "Shorty, I understand you have signed up with the Union." When Goodrich replied that he had, Case contin- ued, "If you would rather listen to outsiders than listen to us, it is immaterial to me." As to this conversation, also, we do not credit, Case's general denial and find, as did the Trial Examiner, that this conversation occurred substantially as testified to by Goodrich. The respondent contends that any remarks made by its super- visory officials to employees relative to the Union or their affiliation therewith were expressions of personal opinion and not binding upon the respondent in the absence of evidence showing that such remarks reflected its views or that they were authorized, encouraged, or ac- quiesced in by it. In this connection the respondent points to evi- dence to the effect that DeMent and Case had received instructions from the plant manager not to 'interfere with the employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act:-However, the respondent's notice of February 28, 1939,' indicates that the foregoing statements made by the respondent's supervisory officials to employees were reflections of the general hostile attitude of the respondent toward the Union. Moreover, even if the respondent's supervisory officials 438 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Were acting in violation of instructions in engaging in the activities detailed above, the respondent did not make its instructions effective and is responsible for such activities.? We, find no merit in the respondent's contention. - We find that by the notice of February 28, 1939, and the foregoing statements of DeMent and Case, the respondent interfered with, re- strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, and assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection as gauranteed in Section 7 of the Act. B. Alleged interference, restraint, and coercion with respect to the: election of August 23, 1939 On August 23, 1939, an election by secret ballot was conducted by the Regional Director among the employees at the plant to deter- mine whether they desired to be represented by the Union. In this election, 114 employees voted for the Union and 209 voted against it.. The Regional Director notified the Union and the respondent of the results and the representatives of both the Union and the respondent certified that they were satisfied that the election was' held in a fair and impartial manner. ' The complaint alleges that during this election the respondent instructed its employees to vote against the Union, stationed foremen near the polling place to dis- courage employees from voting for the Union, and threatened to close the plant for two months if the Union won the election. We have reviewed the record and find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the evidence does not support this allegation of the complaint. The election was held during working hours in a building in the block next to that on which the respondent's plant is located and the employees were given time off, with pay, in which to vote. During the voting, various of the respondent's foremen, after their respective departments had been released to vote, gathered on the corner by the respondent's plant and engaged in conversation. The foremen did not speak to any of the employees as they passed on their way to vote and did not conduct themselves in a way to in- dicate their preference as to how the employees should vote. Since there is no showing that the foremen did anything other than loiter in front of the plant while a secret ballot was being conducted at. 7 See Swift & Co. v. N L. R. B , 106 F. (2d) 87 (C. C. A 10) enf'g as mod , Matter of Swift & Company, a corporation 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 - BEMIS BRO. BAG COMPANY I 439 some distance therefrom, we shall dismiss the allegation of the com- plaint that by its conduct during this election the respondent inter- fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. C. The alleged discrimination with respect to hire and tenure of employment 1. Goodrich The complaint alleges that on or about October 9, 1939, the re- spondent terminated the employment of Anuel Goodrich because of his union membership and activity. Goodrich joined the Union on February 7, 1939. He was not an officer or committeeman but had solicited union memberships among the employees at their homes and while going to and from work. Goodrich was first employed by the respondent in March 1934 in the receiving department. In November 1936 he was transferred to the waterproofing department, and became a helper to one Flem- ming, another union member. According to Flemming and one Schauman, another employee to whom Goodrich served as helper for a tine, Goodrich's work was not satisfactory and resulted in complaints and the manufacture of defective materials from time to time. In September 1939 Goodrich's failure to perform his job properly resulted in from 30 to 40 yards of burlap being rendered defective and unusable. Flemming complained to Foreman Case that Goodrich did not pay attention to his work and asked for another helper on the ground that he' could not produce good work with Goodrich assisting him. Case then assigned one Lewis, another union member, as helper to Flemming and put Goodrich to work operating the cutter. At this time Case warned Goodrich that if he continued to do poor work he would be discharged. According to the testi- mony of several employees, operation of the cutter is not difficult and can be learned in one day. Goodrich, however, failed to become proficient after several days. He was then replaced, sent to the Barton Street plant, and assigned to work there on the second shift. That shift was terminated on October 6, 1939. At that time the foreman at the Barton- Street plant was requested by Case to retain Goodrich to do other work but refused to do so on the ground that he had other employees better qualified for the work. Consequently, Goodrich reported for work at the Fourth Street plant on the morn- ing of October 9, 1939, was sent to Case, and advised that he was discharged because of his unsatisfactory work. Under these circumstances and considering that Goodrich was discharged as a result of complaints by Flemming, a union member, 440 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that Flemming testified to. the unsatisfactory nature of Goodrich's work, and that Goodrich was replaced by another union member, we do not find . that Goodrich was discriminatorily discharged to discourage membership in the Union. 2. Wolverton The complaint alleges that in October 1939 the respondent laid off Aubrey Wolverton for one week because of his membership and activity in the Union. A review of the record indicates that the evidence does not support this allegation of the complaint. It appears that Wolverton was laid off by the respondent as a disciplinary measure because of his violation of a rule promulgated by the respondent forbidding the solicitation of memberships to any organization during working hours or on the respondent's property. There is no showing that the rule was discriminatorily applied to Wolverton. Wolverton was reinstated by the respondent at the end of a week and was working at the time of the hearing. On these facts we do not find that the respondent discriminatorily laid off Wolverton to discourage membership in the Union. 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- spondent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the sev- eral States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob- structing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY We have found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices. We shall order the respondent to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action which we find neces- sary to, effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAw 1. Textile Workers Union of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization within the mean- ing 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 1 BEMIS BRO. BAG COMPANY 441 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:- , (6) and (7)_ of the Act. T- : - -. - - : . - . ' . .f- 4.. The respondent has not engaged in-unfair labor practices 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 re- spondent, Bemis Bro. Bag Company, St. Louis, Missouri, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restiain- '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 purposes of collective bargain- ing or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post immediately in conspicuous places at its Fourth Street plant, St.. Louis, Missouri, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating that the respondent will not engage in the con- duct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraph 1 of this Order; and (b) Notify the Regional Director for.the Fourteenth Region -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, and it hereby is dismissed in so far as it alleges that the respondent (1) engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act with respect to Anuel Goodrich and Aubrey Wolverton, -and (2) during the conduct of the election of August 23, 1939, instructed its employees to vote against the Union, stationed. foremen near the polling place to discourage employees from voting for the Union, and threatened to close the plant if the Union won the election. i CHAIRMAN HARRY A. MILLis took no part in the consideration of, the above Decision and Order. _