Anaconda Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 23, 1979

241 N.L.R.B. 1091 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

A NA('ON I
Anaconda Co.-Wire and Cable Div. and Chauffeurs,
Teamsters and Helpers Local Union No. 391, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Case II
CA 7587
April 23. 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JNKINS
ANI) PENI.I.o()
On January 26. 1979, Administrative Law Judge
Robert C. Batson issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter. Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions' and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby or-
ders that the Respondent, Anaconda Co.-Wire and
Cable Division, Eden, North Carolina, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order. The Board
I Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule
an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless
the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dro Wall Products. Inc., 91 NLRB 544
(1950). enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the
record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
Respondent has also excepted to the Administrative Law Judge's ruling at
the hearing to grant General Counsel's request to amend the complaint to
include the allegations involving Sandra Mabes. Respondent contends that
the amendment prejudiced Respondent's preparation of its defense. After
carefully considering the matter. we find that Respondent was not prejudiced
by the amendment to the complaint. In this connection, we note the Admin-
istrative Law Judge offered Respondent additional time to investigate the
allegations of' the amendment but Respondent chose to proceed with the
hearing.
On March 26. 1979. the Board issued an Order severing Case II RC
4485 from Case II CA 7587, granting the Petitioner's motion to withdraw
its objections filed in Case I I RC 4485, and certifying the results of the
election held on April 13. 1978. Accordingly, we find it unnecessary to pass
on the Administrative aw Judge's comment and findings concerning the
representation case, including the alleged impact of the unfair labor practices
upon the outcome of the representation election. or to adopt his recommen-
dations In this respect
1091
modifies the recommended Order by deleting the final
paragraph.
DEC'ISION
SIAtI MEN I ()F 111 ('ASI
ROBERI C. BrsoN. Administrative Law Judge: This
consolidated proceeding under the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended. 29 U.S.C. §151, seq. (herein called
the Act), was heard before me on October 2 and 3. 1978,1 at
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, based on a complaint and
notice of hearing in Case I I-CA 7587. issued by the Acting
Regional Director lor Region II (Winston-Salem, North
Carolina) on June 2 1, growing out of a charge filed on April
20, as amended on June 12. by Chauffeurs. Teamsters and
Helpers Local Union No. 391, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters. Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, herein called the Union or Petitioner, alleging
that Anaconda Co. Wire and Cable Div., herein called the
Respondent, violated Section 8(aX I) of the Act.
On February 14, the Union filed a petition for certifica-
tion of representative with the Board in Case I RC 4485
seeking to represent an appropriate unit of employees of
Respondent. The Regional Director for Region I issued a
Decision and Direction of Election in an appropriate unit'
on March 17. On April 13, an election was conducted
among the employees in the appropriate unit under the su-
pervision of said Regional Director, which resulted in a
tally of ballots reflecting that of approximately 125 eligible
voters; 57 cast valid ballots for, and 64 cast valid ballots
against, the Petitioner. There were no challenged or void
ballots. On April 20. the Petitioner filed timely objections to
conduct affecting the results of the election. On June 23, the
said Regional Director issued a Supplemental Decision, Di-
rection, and Order Consolidating Cases, wherein he over-
ruled certain of Petitioner's objections and concluded that
Objection 5 was coextensive with the allegations of the
complaint theretofore issued in Case II -CA-7585 and or-
dered that objection consolidated for hearing with the un-
fair labor practice case. B telegraphic order dated August
10, the Board denied Respondent's request for review of
that order.
The complaint as amended at the hearing' alleges four
separate instances of unlawful interrogation, all of which
are alleged to have occurred between February 14, the date
of the filing of the petition, and April 13, the date of the
election, and are coextensive with the subject matter of Pe-
titioner's Objection 5. The Respondent's duly filed Answer.
as amended at the hearing, denies the commission of any
I All relevant events In this case occurred during the calendar year 1978.
and unless otherwise indicated all months and dates referred to hereafter are
in 1978.
2 he unit found to be appropriate is:
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Eden.
North Carolina, plant, excluding office clerical employees. supervisory
trainees, managerial employees, salaried employees, guards and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act
At the hearing the counsel for the General Counsel's motion to amend
the complaint by adding two additional allegations of coercive interrogation
ssas granted A similar motion to delete from the original complaint the
allegation of a threat of reprisal for voting for the tUniion was also granted
241 NLRB No. 187
DI)L CISIONS OF NATIONAL. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unfair labor practices and that it has engaged in any objec-
tionahle conduct in the representation proceeding which
would warrant the setting aside of the election.
All issues were ull ' liligated at he hearing: all parties
iaritilr;llced thruolghLo ut b coLinIsel ;Ln1t were a;ltrded lull
oppor ttltlitt tIo present evidence ' and a rguments, to mllke
oral argument, and to ile post-hearing briefs. The counsel
for the General ('ounsel and the Respondent waived tile
filing ot post-hearing briels and made oral argument on the
record.'
Upon the entire record, including consideration of oral
arguments, and my observations of the testimonial demea-
nor of the witnesses testifying under oath, and upon sub-
stantial reliable evidence I make the following:
FININ(;S () FA( I
I. II1 BI SINISS 01 RESPONDENT
The Respondent-Employer is, and has been at all times
material herein, a Delaware corporation with an office and
place of business located at Eden. North Carolina, where it
is engaged in the manufacture of plastic communications
cables. During the 12-month period preceding the issuance
of the complaint herein, which is a representative period,
Respondent purchased and received goods and materials
valued in excess of $50.000 directly from points located out-
side the State of North Carolina. During the same period of
time, Respondent shipped products valued in excess of
$50,000 directly to points located outside the State of North
Carolina. Accordingly, I find and conclude, as alleged in
the complaint and admitted by the Respondent, that at all
times material herein the Respondent was, and is, an em-
ployer as defined in Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in
commerce and in operations affecting commerce as defined
in Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THiE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union, Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local
Union No. 391, International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is,
and has been at all times material herein, a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
Ill. THE AI.LEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND
OBJE('TIONS TO ELECTION
The complaint alleges that on or about April 9, 1978.
Supervisor Jim Pursell "[i]nterrogated an employee by ask-
ing said employee what the union button meant that said
employee was wearing." In support of this allegation, em-
ployee Paul Ashe testified that for about 3 days at some
4 No representative appeared at the hearing on behalf of the Union-Peti-
tioner. However. the failure of the Union-Petitioner to cause a representative
to be present at the hearing does not afford a basis for dismissing the objec-
tions t'i the election, since evidence in support of the objections and the
complaint are cextensive.
The Respondent's motion to dismiss the objections for failure of the
Petitioner to appear at the hearing is denied. The Respondent's oral motion
to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the allegations, even if true. are
de minimis and do not warrant a remedial order is disposed of herein.
point prior to the election he wore a "patch" displayed on
his shirt bearing the legend "The Teamsters are coming."
According to Ashe, on one of the days he was wearing the
patch, his supervisor, Jim Pursell, came to his work station
and asked him what the patch meant. Ashe responded by
telling Pursell that the Teamsters were coming.' In his pre-
trial alidavit. which he reahlirmled at the trial, Ashe stated
that he told Pursell on this occasion, "You might as well
tace it. that the 'Ieamsters are coming."
Pursell testified that about 2 weeks before the election he
had a conversation with Ashe when Ashe was wearing a
patch but that he did not remember asking him anything
about the patch. Pursell testified the conversation involved
personal matters, but did not elaborate.
Pursell's testimony that he did not remember any refer-
ence to the patch in his conversation with Ashe is uncon-
vincing. Therefore, I credit Ashe's version of the conversa-
tion, that Pursell asked him, in effect, what the patch
meant.
The complaint alleges that on or about March 24, 1978,
Supervisor Junior McDaniel "interrogated an employee re-
garding said employee's reasons for desiring union repre-
sentation."
Debora Moore. who was employed as a roustabout on
the second shift, testified that on March 24 her foreman,
Junior McDaniel, came to her work station and said "Deb-
ora, just between you and myself I want to know why you
want union representation." Moore replied that there were
things going on that she didn't like and alluded to too much
"favoritism" as one of the reasons she wanted representa-
tion. McDaniel stated, "Well, I just wanted to know." He
then walked away. McDaniel came back to Moore later
that day and told her that he didn't want her to take him
wrong and that he was not trying to be funny, but that he
just wanted to know. Moore testified that on either that
occasion or a later one McDaniel observed a note pad upon
which she had written some questions she planned to ask at
a company meeting involving the Union. McDaniel asked if
he could read the questions, and Moore gave him permis-
sion to do so, after which she asked him if he could answer
them. McDaniel replied that he could not but that he
thought they were good questions and she should ask them
at the company meeting.7
McDaniel testified that at the time of the hearing he did
not remember asking Moore why she wanted union repre-
sentation or any question to that effect. However. he admit-
ted that on one occasion he observed a list of questions
lying on top of Moore's machine and asked her if he could
read them. Moore agreed. and when McDaniel had finished
reading the questions Moore asked what he thought about
them. McDaniel told her they were good questions, and
Moore asked if he could answer them. McDaniel told her
he was not in a position to answer questions, but that she
I At the hearing Ashe testified that he did not wear a patch for about a
month before the election. This incident occurred on a day Ashe was wear-
ing the patch. In an affidavit given a Board agent on April 25, Ashe placed
the date of this incident on April 9.
7 The complaint does not specifically allege, nor, apparently, does the
General Counsel argue, that McDaniel's request to lead the questions Moore
had prepared to ask at the company meeting constitutes a violation of the
Act.
1092
ANACONDA CO.
should bring them up at the meeting it' she wanted an hon-
est answer.
Moore testified in a straightforward and convincing man-
ner. particularrl with respect to McDaniel's interrogation
of her concerning the reasons she wanted union representa-
tion. On the other hand. McDaniel's equivocal denial ap-
peared to he less than candid. In response to the question of
whether he recalled making such an inquiry of Moore. Mc-
Daniel replied, "No, sir. At this time I don't recall saying
that." Accordingly. I credit Moore's testimony in this re-
gard.
The complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleges that
on or about the first of April 1978, supervisor Junior Mc-
Daniel "interrogated an employee by asking said employee
what she thought about the Union" and that on or about
April 12, 1978, Supervisor Bob Smith "interrogated an em-
ployee by asking said employee what she thought the
Union could do for her."
In support of these allegations, counsel for the General
Counsel elicited testimony from a former employee. Sandra
Mahes. Mabes testified that during the union campaign she
wore two union insignia indicating her support for the
Union. One of the insignia bore the legend. "A woman's
place is in the Union" and the other, "Teamsters are beau-
tiful." About the first of April, McDaniel approached her in
the shipping department and asked her what she thought
about the union. Mabes apparently told McDaniel that she
supported the Union, as was indicated by the insignia she
was wearing. McDaniel then asked her what she thought
the Union could do for her. She testified that she told Mc-
Daniel what she thought the Union could do for her, but
the record does not reveal what she told him.
McDaniel acknowledges a conversation about the Union
with Mabes about the first part of April in the shipping
department. In this regard. McDaniel testified, "[F]irst we
started talking about the management people; that she
didn't feel free to talk to them the way she used to," to
which McDaniel responded that the company had. and had
always had, an open door policy and told Mabes that no
one would know how she felt unless she told them. McDan-
iel testified that they then talked about current benefits the
employees had, which led to Mabes' inquiring of him about
how he felt about the Union. McDaniel then told Mabes
that if she thought the Union would benefit her it was en-
tirely up to her. I am convinced that Mabes' version of the
conversation is the more accurate. The discussion concern-
ing management and Mabes' feeling that she was not free to
talk with them was prompted by her response to McDan-
iel's inquiry as to what she thought the Union could do for
her. McDaniel testified that Mabes first brought up the sub-
ject of management people not being as receptive as they
used to be. Thus, I find that McDaniel asked Mabes what
she thought about the Union and followed up by asking her
what she thought the Union could do for her.
Mabes further testified that Inspection Supervisor Bob
Smith came to her in the shipping department on April 12.
the day before the election, and told her. "Sandra, every-
body has told me that you were for the Union. but I didn't
believe them.... I thought you had more sense than that."
Mabes replied that she thought she had a lot of sense, at
which time Smith asked her what she thought the Union
could do for her. Mahes told Smith that the Union was like
an insurance policy. it would be there if she needed it.
Smith then told Mahes that he had worked in unionized
plants and there wasn't much difference between them and
the Eden plant.
Smith testified that he talked with Mabes on a couple of
occasions but could not recall the conversation to which
Mabes testified. Mabes testified in a straightforward and
convincing manner and impressed me as speaking truth-
fully. On the other hand. Smith did not categorically deny
Mabes' testimony concerning the April 12 incident but
merely stated that he could not "recall" or "remember." I
credit Mabes that Smith inquired of her as to what she
thought the Union could do for her.
Analysis and Conclusions
At the hearing the Respondent moved to dismiss the
complaint and the objections to the election on the grounds
that the conduct asserted by the General Counsel's wit-
nesses, if found to be true, was so isolated in a unit exceed-
ing 12() employees that a remedial Order was not warranted
and as a matter of law are insufficient to overturn the elec-
tion.
All the allegations of the complaint, with which the ob-
jections are coextensive, are based upon discussions be-
tween company representatives and known union adher-
ents. Some Board precedent holds that questioning of
employees who have openly declared their union advocacy
concerning their reasons for wanting the Union to represent
them does not per se constitute a violation of the Act. 8 All
the allegations herein involve such questioning, including
the question concerning what the prounion insignia the em-
ployee wore meant. The prounion insignia worn by the em-
ployee here was clear, "The Teamsters are coming"; a ques-
tion as to what it meant could only be construed by the
employee to call for a defense of his adherence to the
Union. Although not couched in terms of "What do you
think the Union can do for you?" or "Why do you want
union representation?" the clearly expected response is tan-
tamount to the same thing. Thus, this case boils down to
the question of whether four separate instances of interro-
gation of three employees by three supervisors as to their
reasons for supporting the Union amounts to conduct
which would tend to interfere with the employee's Section 7
rights and, afortiori, the conduct of the election.
In making a determination as to whether such interroga-
tion of employees is coercive, some Board precedent ap-
pears to require a consideration of certain elements of the
surrounding circumstances, i.e., the personal relationship
between the employee and the supervisor-whether on a
first-name basis, whether a casual, informal conversation in
an amicable atmosphere. and whether the information
sought appeared to form a basis for taking reprisals against
the employee.9 However, in more recent cases it appears
that the Board does not find consideration of such factors to
See Flight Sqfety. Inc, 197 NLRB 223 (1972), and Federal Paper Board
Co., Inc., 206 NLRB 681, 683 (1973).
' See Pepsi-Cola Botling Co. of Los Angeles, 211 NLRB 870. 872 (1974).
10(93
I).(ISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR REI.A1TINS BOARD
be controlling. In T17T Automotive Electrical Products Divi-
sion, 231 N.RB 347 (1977), the Board, Member Walther
dissenting, reversed the Administrative Law Judge's conclu-
sion that inquiries by two supervisors of two employees as
to why they were wearing union buttons did not constitute
unlawful interrogation. The Board majority concluded that
although the two employees had openly declared that they
were union adherents, the Respondent was not free to
probe directly or indirectly into their reasons for supporting
the Union. The Board majority stated, "[I]n our view, such
probing tends to have a coercive effect upon employees,
whether or not the employees have openly declared their
support for the Union." In Paceco. a Division of Fruehauf
Corporation, 237 NLRB 399 (1978). the Board again re-
versed the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that in-
quiries by supervisors as to why an employee had changed
his mind and was supporting the Union was not coercive,
since such inquiries were not accompanied by threats or
promises. The Board concluded that "an interrogation of
an employee's union sympathies or his reasons for support-
ing a union need not be uttered in a context of threats or
promises in order to be coercive. The probing of such views,
even addressed to employees who have openly declared
their prounion sympathies, reasonably tends to interfere
with employee rights under the Act, and, consequently. is
coercive." The Board further held, "An inquiry into an em-
ployee's views toward a union or unionization in general,
even ostensibly questioned 'out of curiosity' and in the con-
text of assurances against reprisals, reasonably tends to in-
terfere with the free exercise of an employee's Section 7
rights. regardless of the employee's subjective state of'
mind."
In view of the foregoing precedents, by which I am
bound, I find and conclude that the questioning of known
union adherents as set forth above, directly or indirectly
probing their reasons for wanting union representation,
tends to have a coercive effect upon the employees and,
therefore, violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In so conclud-
ing I have considered the following factors: There is no
other evidence in the record demonstrating employer hostil-
ity or discrimination toward those supporting the Union.
The questioning was conducted by firstline supervisors who
were on a first-name basis with the employees and occurred
in casual informal discussions at the employees' work sta-
tions. There is no evidence that the questions were asked to
obtain information for the purpose of reprisals by the com-
pany or that the employees believed such to be the case in
view of their apparently truthful and freely given answers.
Notwithstanding these findings with respect to the circum-
stances surrounding the interrogations concerning employ-
ees' reasons for desiring union representation. I find, in ac-
cordance with ITT and Paceco, supra, that such
interrogation of employees is inherently coercive and, there-
fore, interferes with the exercise of their Section 7 rights.
Such questioning of employees implicitly calls upon them
to defend their right to support a union, which right is guar-
anteed by Section 7 of the Act. The only purposes for such
questioning of employees are: (I) to ascertain their reasons
for union support so that the employer may argue the lack
of merit for their reasons or (2) to determine their reasons
so that he may take corrective action, which is in itself an
unlawful promise of benefits to refrain from supporting the
Union. Accordingly. by such conduct the Respondent has
violated Section 7 of the Act.
IV. Ill I F( I' OF SU(H (ONDI)('I IUPON lit II ,F('IION
As heretofore noted, all the complaint allegations are co-
extensive with Petitioner's Objection No. 5, which is con-
solidated with the complaint case. It is well settled that any
unfair labor practices occurring during the critical period"'
do not necessarily require the election be set aside. The
conduct must be such that it would reasonably tend to have
an impact upon the results of the election. The Board has
traditionally held that misconduct of the foregoing type has
a tendency to impair employees' freedom of choice in repre-
sentation elections and thus requires the holding of another
election. However, in some cases the Board has concluded
that certain objectionable conduct was too isolated in refer-
ence to the total circumstances to warrant an inference that
it affected the election results. In making this determina-
tion, the Board considers the proximity of the conduct to
the date of the election as well as the margin of votes dis-
closed by the tally of ballots. The conduct here occurred
during the 2 weeks before the election, some the day before,
and was directly aimed at three employees by three supervi-
sors. While there were 125 eligible employees, the Union
lost the election by only seven votes. Thus, the impact of
the misconduct is the same as if the entire unit consisted of;
at most, seven employees." Accordingly, Petitioner's Objec-
tion 5 has been sustained, and I shall set the election aside
and direct a new one.
CONCILUSIONS OF LAW
I. Jurisdiction is properly asserted in these proceedings.
2. By coercively interrogating its employees concerning
their reasons for desiring union representation and what
they thought the Union could do for them, Respondent has
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Sections 8(a)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. Respondent has not otherwise violated the National
Labor Relations Act.
4. The conduct of Respondent as set forth in Conclusion
of Law 2, above, occurring as it did during the pendency of
the representation election in Case I -RC 4485, such con-
duct being violative of Section 8(a)( 1 ) of the Act and coex-
tensive with the Union's Objection 5. it follows that the
election conducted on April 13, 1978, in Case I RC 4485
must be set aside and said case be remanded to the Re-
gional Director for Region II with direction to conduct a
new election at an appropriate time.
TIE REMEDY
Inasmuch as Respondent has been found guilty of viola-
tions of Section 8(a)( I1) of the Act, which conduct interfered
is Only conduct occurring between the date of the filing of the petition and
the date of the election may be considered as conduct warranting the setting
aside of the election.
' See Standard Knirtting Mills Inc., 172 NI.RB 1122 (1968).
1094
ANACONDA CO.
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, I
conclude from the totality of such unlawful conduct that
Respondent should be required to cease and desist from
any like or related conduct and to take certain affirmative
action to effectuate the policies of the Act. Such affirmative
action of Respondent shall be that it post the usual infor-
mational notice.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 2
The Respondent, Anaconda Co.-Wire and Cable Div.,
Eden, North Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating its employees concerning
their union activities, including, but not limited to, the rea-
sons they desire union representation.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its Eden, North Carolina, plant copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said no-
tice, on forms duly provided by the Regional Director for
Region I 1, after being duly signed by Respondent's repre-
sentative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon
12 In the event no exceptions are filed, as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board. the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
13 In the event that this Order is enforced by ajudgment of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."
receipt thereof, and be maintained for a period of 60 con-
secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region II. in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election conducted on
April 13, 1978, in Case I I -RC-4485 be, and the same is, set
aside, and said case is remanded to the aforesaid Regional
Director to conduct a new election at such time as he deems
that the circumstances permit the employees to exercise
their free choice regarding the selection of a collective-bar-
gaining representative.
APPENDIX
NOTI(E To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Act gives all employees
these rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or assist unions of their choosing
To bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing
To act together for collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection
To refrain from any and all of these things.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning
their union activities, including, but not limited to, the
reasons they desire union representation.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, and coerce our employees in the exercise
of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
ANA(CONIA Co.-WIRE AND CABLE DIV.
1095