Coating Products Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 1980

251 N.L.R.B. 1271 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

C()AIINti PRODUCTS, INC. 127
Coating Products, Inc. and District Lodge No. 91,
International Association of Machinists & Aero-
space Workers, AFL-CIO and The Employees
Committee of Coating Products, Inc., Party in
Interest
Coating Products, Inc. and Michael Costa
Coating Products, Inc. and District Lodge No. 91,
International Association of Machinists & Aero-
space Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases 1-
CA-15853, 1-CA-16090, and 1-RC-16126
August 27, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
PENEI.I.O AND TRUESDAI.E
On March 11, 1980, Administrative Law Judge
Thomas A. Ricci issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief,' and the General
Counsel filed a brief in support of the Administra-
tive Law Judge's Decision.2
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
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings,3 and conclusions4 of the Administrative Law
Judge.
I Respondent has requested oral argument This request is hereby
denied as the record, the exceptions, and the briefs adequately present the
issues and the positions of the parties
2 Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made hb the
Administratlve L.a% Judge. It is the Boards eslablished policy nriot to
overrule an admini tr;alive law iuldge' resolutionl ith respect to credi-
bility unless he clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con-
.inces us that the resolullons are Ilncorrect Standard Dr Wall/ Products.
Inc., 91 NRB 544 19t1(). enfd 188 F 2d 32 (d 'lir 1951) We have
carefully eamilned the record and find no basis f r reersing his findings
Respondent alsii contends that the Administratise I a Judges. con-
duct of the hearing, interpretation of the eidence, and credihblit' find-
ings showed bias and prejudice Uponl careful examination of the Admin-
istralive Law Judge's Decision and the entire record, we are satisfied that
the contentions of Respondent in this regard are without merit.
a The Administrative Law Judge found, and we agree, that, when em-
ployee Jerry Michaud asked Plant Manager Stanley Reins for a promo-
tion to a leadman position, Reins said that Respondent would not pro-
mote any employees as long as they were "involved" with the Union,
and that this statement violated Sec.
8
(a)(1) of the Act The Administra-
tive l.aw Judge further found that the refusal to promote Michaud iolat-
ed Sec.
8
(a)(3) of the Act We agree, aid, in adopting his finding we
note that Michaud testified without contradiction that at the time he re-
quested the promotion he was alread' ding leadman work, and that he
received the promotion a week after the election Further. Respondent
does not contend that Michaud was not entitled to the promotion earlier.
but only that Respondent had decided niot to grant any promofions until
after the election was over iven Responidents asserted reasons fr re-
fusing to promote Michaud. e conclude that Respondent has laClitlx ad-
mitted that he was not made a leadman because of the union campaign,
and that the failure to promote Michaud therefore violated Sec. 8(a)(3) of
the Act
251 NLRB No. 170
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Coating Products, Inc., New Britain, Connecticut,
its officers, agents, successors. and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging, refusing to promote, or in any
other manner discriminating against its employees
because of their union activities.
(b) Creating the impression that management is
engaging in surveillance of the union activities of
employees.
(c) Coercively interrogating employees concern-
ing their union sentiments and activities.
(d) Soliciting individual grievances from employ-
ees in order to discourage their union activities.
(e) Threatening employees with imposition of
more onerous work duties in retaliation for, or to
curb, their union activities.
(f) Telling employees they will be denied promo-
tions because of their union activities.
(g) Telling employees any efforts to engage in
collective bargaining through a union would be
futile.
(h) Threatening to deprive employees of pension
and health and welfare benefits in retaliation for
union activities.
4 e agree with the Administralive Law Judge that Respondent's ex-
tensive ad egregious unfair labor practices, including threats ,of reprisal
for uniot actlity, discriminatory discharge of one employee and refusal
to promote another, loerclxe nterroga;lioin, creating the impression if
surveillance f unuiln atclsitS, support of an employee committee to dl,-
courage iiion actisit). otlic ltation f emplo)ee grievances and the prom-
is t rliteds thenil, and granllting inipro'\ennlI, in ternil and ,ndllltllo
of emplo, nlcnl a.ffectig all enlplosces II the bargaiillg unit v rrill in
position f a hbargaining order Clearly. as the Administratie I av, Judge
found, the coercise effects of this conduct "cannot he liniate(d h) the
applicatlionl of traditional remedies. v lth the resuilt that a fair anid relablc
election cannot he had " .R.R i (is ,el Paitirng (,, j9 C 1 [3 S
575, 614 ( 9h91 In reaching this conclusion. u hae onsidered ;ll of
Respondent's unfair labor practices found hereil. and do rolt adopt the
Administrative l.a, Judge's finding that. because tile Board, il remcdll
ing an unlawful grant of benefits, does not require that the bhnelllil, 1-
rescinded, such conduct has a greater lingering effect on emplosc , thin
certain other unfair labor practices such as threats of dishch rge ,r prim-
ises of benefits Such a finding involves speculat ion i uhich se are iun-
willing to engage
Our resies of the record establishes that Respondenlt began it, course
of unlaswful conduct on December 4. 1978. that the niton had oblaited
cards from 38 of 74 unit emplo)ees by December 7. and that the Union
demanded recognillion on December 28, 1978 Accirdingly, and as all of
Respondent's other unfair labor practices are oitherwise remedied h our
Order herein. sse find that Respondents bargaining obligation arose as of
the latter date See lradinR Port, Inc.. 219 NRB 298, 31)1 1975)
The Administrative Lasx Judge recommended that a hroad oIrder islsue
against Respondent We find merit n the Adminlstratlle lass Jidge's
recommendaltion as Respondent's unlauful colnduct icliding interroga-
rions. sursedllance, granting of benefits, threats, arid discharge, was exten-
sive and reached most, if not all, f lhe cllt ire criplr iC ollplilcrtill I
Hickmott I-iFod. Inc.. 242 NLRB 1357 (197)1
Inasmuch as the recorl estabhlishes h;lt Jrr, Michalud sas prliioled
to the postion of leadman, we shall not order h promnlotion, but shiall
order Respondent to make him whhole for its delay in offering him the
position
1271
1272 DI)tCISI()NS ()OF NATI()NAL I.ABOR RELATIONS B()ARI)
(i) Threatening to discharge employees in retali-
ation for their union activities.
(j) Offering employees benefits in order to wean
them away from supporting the Union.
(k) Granting the employees benefits in order to
undermine their support and activities on behalf of
the Union.
(1) Encouraging and contributing support to the
creation of any employee committee for the pur-
pose of discouraging union activities.
(m) Refusing to bargain with District Lodge No.
91, International Association of Machinists & Aero-
space Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of all the employees
in the appropriate unit described below:
All full-time and regular part-time production
and maintenance employees of Respondent at
its New Britain, Connecticut, plant, excluding
office clerical employees, professional employ-
ees, watchmen, guards, and all supervisors as
defined in the Act.
(n) In any other manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise
of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or
assist a labor organizaiton, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec-
tion as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, or to
refrain from any and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Recognize and, upon request, bargain collec-
tively with the aforesaid Union as the exclusive
representative of all the employees in the above-de-
scribed unit with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody
such understanding in a signed agreement; pro-
vided, however, that nothing herein shall be con-
strued to require Respondent to vary or abandon
the wage rate or benefit changes made, or to preju-
dice the assertion by employees of any rights they
may have as a result thereof.
(b) Offer Michael Costa immediate and full rein-
statement to his former position or, if such position
no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent posi-
tion, without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges previously enjoyed.
'See, generally, is Plumbhing & Hearing Co.. 138 N.RB 716 (1962).
6 In the eent that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United Stales Court of Appeals enforcing an
Order of he Natiolll l.abor Relations HBoard"
(c) Make whole Michael Costa and Jerry Mi-
chaud for any loss of pay or benefits they may
have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimi-
nation against them in the manner provided in F.
W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and
Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977).5
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to
the Board or its agents, for examination and copy-
ing, all payroll records, social security payment re-
cords, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Order.
(e) Post at its New Britain, Connecticut, plant
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 6
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 1, after being duly
signed by Respondent's authorized representative,
shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con-
secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
cluding 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.States Court of Appeals, the words in the
notice reading "Posted by Order of the National
Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of
Appeals enforcing an Order of the National Labor
Relations Board."
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps Respondent has taken to comply here-
with.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held in
Case -RC-16126 be, and it hereby is, set aside and
that the petition filed in that proceeding be, and it
hereby is, dismissed.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
Following a hearing at which all parties had an op-
portunity to present evidence and cross-examine
witnesses, the National Labor Relations Board has
found that we violated the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, and has ordered us to post
this notice. We intend to abide by the following:
WE Wll I. NOT discharge, refuse to promote,
or in any other manner discriminate against
employees because of their union activities.
COATING PRODUCTS IC. 1273
WE WILL NOT create the impression that
management is surveilling the union activities
of employees.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate em-
ployees concerning their union sentiments or
activities.
WE Wlt.L. NOT solicit individual grievances
from employees in order to discourage their
union activities.
WE WILll NOT threaten employees with im-
position of more onerous work duties in retali-
ation for, or to curb, their union activities.
WE WI.l. NOT tell employees they will be
denied promotions because of their union ac-
tivities.
WE Wlil.l NOT' tell employees any efforts to
engage in collective bargaining through a
union will be futile.
WE WIl.. NOT threaten to deprive employ-
ees of pension and health and welfare benefits
in retaliation for union activities.
WE Wll. NOT threaten to discharge employ-
ees in retaliation for their union activities.
WE Wl.. NOT offer employees benefits in
order to wean them away from supporting the
Union.
WE WILL. NOT grant employees benefits in
order to undermine their support and activities
on behalf of the Union.
WE Wl. NOT encourage and contribute
support to the creation of any employee com-
mittee for purposes of discouraging union ac-
tivities.
WE WILL. NOT refuse to bargain with Dis-
trict Lodge No. 91, International Association
of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-
CIO, as the exclusive representative of all the
employees in the following bargaining unit:
All full-time and regular part-time produc-
tion and maintenance employees in our New
Britain, Connecticut, plant, excluding office
clerical employees, professional employees,
watchmen, guards, and all supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
WE WILI. NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed them by Section
7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended.
WE WILL recognize and, upon request, bar-
gain collectively with the above-named Union
as the exclusive representative of the employ-
ees in the above-described unit with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours, or other terms and
conditions of employment, and, if an agree-
ment is reached, embody it in a signed agree-
ment; provided, however, that nothing herein
shall be construed as requiring us to vary or
abandon the wage rate or benefit changes
made, or to prejudice the assertion by employ-
ees of any rights they may have as a result
thereof.
WE Wii. offer Michael Costa immediate
and full reinstatement to his former position
or, if such position no longer exists, to a sub-
stantially equivalent position. without preju-
dice to his seniority or other rights and privi-
leges previously enjoyed.
Wli Wiii make whole both Michael Costa
and Jerry Michaud for any loss of pay or
benefits they may have suffered by reason of
our discrimination against them, with interest.
COATED PRODUCTS, INC.
DECISION
STATEMEN OF HF CASE
THOMAS A. RIccl, Administrative Law Judge: A hear-
ing in this consolidated proceeding was held in East
Hartford. Connecticut, on December 10 and 11. 1979, on
complaint of the General Counsel against Coating Prod-
ucts, Inc., herein called the Respondent or the Employ-
er. The complaint issued on June 26. 1979. based on sep-
arate charges filed by District Lodge No. 91. Interna-
tional Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO. herein called the Union (Case I CA-15853).
on March 29, 1979. and by Michael Costa, an individual
(Case -CA-16090). on May 1X, 1979. The issues raised
by the complaint are whether the Respondent restrained
and coerced employees within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act, whether it illegally discharged Costa
in violation of Section (a)(3). and whether it illegally re-
fused to bargain with the Union on demand i \ violation
of Section 8(a)(5). Consolidated with the complaint is a
representation case (Case I-RC-16126). pursuanIt to
which a Board-conducted election was held: objections
were filed by the Union. After the close of the hearing
briefs were filed by the General Counsel and the Re-
spondent.
Upon the entire record, and from my observation of
the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FAcr
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONI)FN
Coating Products, Inc., a State of Connecticut corpo-
ration, is engaged in the coating, sale, and distribution of
plastic products and related products at its New Britain.
Connecticut, place of business. Annually in the course of
its business at this location it receives materials valued in
excess of $50,000 which are shipped to this plant directly
from out-of-state sources. Annually, in the course of this
same business, the Respondent ships products valued in
excess of $50,000 directly to out-of-state locations. I find
that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within thc
meaning of the Act.
11. THE ILABOR ORGANIZATION INVOI V)
I find that District Lodge No. 91, Internlational Associ-
ation of Machinists & Aerospace Workers. AFL-CIO. is
COATING PRODUCTS, INC 73
1 74 I)tCISIO)NS ()IF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS O()ARI)
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
IIll. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. A Picture of the Case
Early in October and in November 1978 a movement
toward unionization took place among the 74 production
and maintenance employees of the Respondent's, New
Britain, Connecticut, plant. In mid-November, about 15
employees met with Union Representative Mr. Clayman,
and discussed the matter. They met again at the union
hall on November 25, where the employees signed union
authorization cards. The principal activist in all this was
an employee named Michael Costa. On November 25, 7
employees signed union authorization cards, 9 on No-
vember 27 and 15 on November 28. By December 1, 37
employees had authorized the union to represent them,
and by December 13 the total had reached a majority.
On December 4, all the employees were called for a
mass meeting with top representatives of management.
Present were George Trehub, the vice president in
charge of this one plant, Stanley Reins, the plant man-
ager, and other lower supervisors. Present also was
Myron Mainihow, the president. who is also in charge of
plants in other cities, all belonging to a parent corpora-
tion called TYCO. Mainthow lives in New York State
and his office is in New Jersey. Before this date he went
to visit New Britain only about once a month, as he said
at one point in his testimony. The employees were invit-
ed to speak freely about any grievances or problems they
might have, about whatever improvements in working
conditions they sought, or felt they were entitled to. The
meeting lasted over an hour, into overtime, for all of
which time all employees were paid in full. Mainthow
had his secretary make a record of all the employees' de-
mands, and told the group he would respond to them
later at another meeting.
Mainthow then had all the demands restated in precise
detail-listing 31 separate items-and posted that docu-
ment in the plant, together with another posted notice
calling the employees to another mass meeting on De-
cember 14, where "Management will respond to the
items which were discussed on Monday, December 4."
This second meeting, held on December 14, was also on
company paid time. Now Mainthow brought with him a
detailed, well prepared, written statement listing all the
demands the employees had made on the December 4,
with management's reaction to each and every one of
them. He explained his position at length, saying some
things he would give, some he would not. Among the
concessions he agreed to make were a 35-cent-per-hour
raise to every employee in the place, an additional in-
crease of 10 cents per hour in the second- and third-shift
differentials, increases in sick benefits, improvements in
vacation time, and other direct and indirect improve-
ments in the conditions of employment. There was no
consensus reaction to all of this by the employees, al-
though Mainthow asked if they were satisfied.
Not hearing a collective voice from the employees to
his overall offer to resolve what he called "problems"
Mainthow then called another meeting for December 21.
For this he had prepared a number of short statements
which, at the hearing, he called "ballots," for the em-
ployees to use. Each reads as follows:
Dec. 21, 1978
As an employee of Coating Products, Inc., I en-
dorse and support the program put forth by Man-
agement on December 14, 1978, to take effect on
January 1, 1979.
Approve -----
On December 21, the supervisors passed these slips out
among the employees, and most did indicate their reac-
tion. A majority indicated they "approved." A few days
later the Respondent posted another notice, announcing
that the employees had approved the Company's offer of
December 14 and that verN concession there made
would be put into effect on January 1. All of the in-
creased benefits were, in fact, implemented on that day.
By letter dated December 28. 1978. the Union wrote
to the Company, stating that it represented a majority of
its employees and requesting that the Compaly bargain
with it. Receiving no answer, the Union filed a petition
for a Board election on January 8. At the end of January
the parties agreed to a consent election, which was held
on March 2. Meanwhile, the Company granted further
raises to a substantial number of employees on February
22-see below. The election took place as scheduled, and
the Union lost.
Every single fact thus far set out in this Decision was
established by stipulation of the parties or by admission.
at the hearing, that critical factual allegations in the com-
plaint are true. In very minor respect these facts are also
proved by totally uncontradicted testimony of the
Charging arty's switnesses. The only witness called by
the Respondent in defense was Mainthow, who contra-
dicted not one word of the above. His testimony is virtu-
ally no more than retroactive explanation, with no objec-
tive proof, of his state of mind at the time of the events.
The complaint alleges that the Respondent instituted
and carried on this entire course of conduct, soliciting
employee complaints, bargaining directly with the em-
ployees to satisfy their demands, and in fact voluntarily
granting across-the-board raises, and other substantive
improvements in employment conditions, for the express
purpose of defeating the self-organizational campaign of
the working staff. It calls each raise given, each griev-
ance satisfied, each new benefit, each inquiry about
union activities, etc., a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act. And it also alleges that the refusal to bargain violat-
ed Section 8(a)(5). There is a further allegation that after
the election, Costa, the prime union mover, was contruc-
tively discharged, said to be an unfair labor practice
under Section 8(a)(3).
The Respondent denies any wrongdoing. Its essential
defense is that management knew nothing at all about the
union activities until the moment it received the Union's
demand letter, on about January 3. Affirmatively,
Mainthow asserted at the hearing that he decided to
make the employees happier than they were only be-
cause of long standing "problems" in the business, prob-
lems having nothing to do with union activities.
CO)ATINO PRODIUCTS. INC 12 75
B. Further Evidence
Mainthow was present throughout the hearing and
gave the substance of his testimony as the last witness to
take the stand. He, therefore, heard all the direct testimo-
ny by one employee after another, proving without ques-
tion that the vice president, the plant manager, as well as
the lower supervisors, did know about the union activi-
ties well before the program was started towards solicit-
ing and satisfying the employees' economic demands.
This means that what Mainthow was really saying, when
he denied any knowledge about the Union before the be-
ginning of January, is that while his subordinates may
have been informed, they kept the matter secret from
him. It is a very unlikely story, especially in the light of
his frequent presence in the plant starting in the begin-
ning of December 1978 in complete contrast to his ab-
sence from New Britain during the prior year. This
point-high implausibility is equally true with respect to
the Respondent's purpose in what it did. Mainthow kept
repeating he only did all this to resolve "problems" in
the operation of the plant, although his repeated conclu-
sionary assertions failed to prove objectively what prob-
lems he was talking about. But there is testimony, again
uncontradicted, about managers saying during Decem-
ber, that it was urgent to persuade the employees to
accept the Company's offer so that the union activities
could be killed off. Mainthow heard this testimony too.
Was he saying the vice president and the plant manager
saw one purpose in his activities while he had a totally
different one? I can only view this total picture as one of
credibility in its essence, and considering the record in its
entirety, I cannot believe Mainthow, either in his denial
of knowledge about the union activities or in his now
stated purpose in buying off the employees.
C. Alleged 8(a)(1) Violations
Roland Saucier, an operator, who had signed a union
card on November 25, testified that on "The end of No-
vember, first of December," Trehub, the vice president
and top management official in the plant, called him to
the office, closed the door, and told him "he knew that
there were meetings going on . . . And he said we don't
need any of these outsiders. If you have any problems,
you can come to me. T:lat we don't need these people to
negotiate because if it is just going to cause problems,
these people aren't going to be able to get us anything
that we can't get for ourselves." Saucier said this hap-
pened after the men had met with the Union.
Saucier continued to testify that a few weeks later, still
in December, James Farley, a foreman and a conceded
supervisor, sat down next to him at a restaurant and
"... asked me how I was going to vote on the union
and I told him like I told everybody else, that it was
none of his business. He said he could possibly lose his
job over this."
Donald Schroeder also signed a union card on No-
vember 25. He testified that a week later, at his machine,
Farley, then his immediate supervisor, asked "if I had
any union cards that were being passed around that
people would sign, Schroeder chose to answer "No."
I find Trehub's statement to Saucier that he knew
meetings were going on and that outsiders were not
needed in his plant. was intended to, and did create the
impression of illegal surveillance over the employees'
union activities, and therefore constituted a violation of
Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. I also find that by Farley's
questioning of Saucier as to how he was going to vote,
and by his questioning of Schroeder as to whether he
had any of the union cards being passed around, the Re-
spondent interrogated the employees, again in violation
of Section 8(a)(l).
The foregoing is, of course, direct proof that manage-
ment knew, before it called the mass meeting of Decem-
ber 4, that its employees were actively engaged in join-
ing a union. There is more, although really not necessary
to that underlying fact in this case. Phillip Pouliot was
the supervisor of the night shift, over about 13 men. He
testified that "late October or early November," Hayden,
the second shift supervisor, told him about the union ac-
tivities. He also testified that when he was introduced by
Mainthow to the new plant manager, Stanley Reins, at
the end of November, as he told the new man about his
night work and the difficulty he was having, he had oc-
casion to say to Mainthow "that was probably one of the
factors that was causing people to talk union." Pouliot
continued that 2 or 3 weeks after Reins arrived-this
would be about mid-December-the manager took him
out to breakfast to discuss the proposals the Company
was then holding out to the employees, and the impor-
tance of getting them to settle their demands on that
basis. "He said it was to our benefit that we talk it up, to
get the employees to vote for the package and to head
off any union coming in." Pouliot said this took place
before the men were polled by the Company to obtain
their agreement to its offers.
Pouliot testified to still another conversation. this one
with a supervisor over him, Dick McFadden, still before
December 21. McFadden wanted him to discharge a
man, but Pouliot thought it better not to do that.
McFadden then spoke as follows to him: "He brought up
the company plan. He stated the same general idea,
stated that the plan was a good plan and as a supervisor
I should talk it up to my men and do everything in my
power to turn this thing around . . . he wanted to turn
around this union talk .... He said he wLianted to have
this talked up before it got to a vote ... . He stated as a
supervisor I should talk up the plan so that we could
head off any impending union activity."
Two days later Pouliot was called to Trehub's office,
who found fault with him for having said he "couldn't
turn this thing around." When Pouliot defended his posi-
tion, the vice president spoke to him as follows:
George told me that if a union got in there, the
employees would not be dealing with the union,
would not be dealing with him or Mike Mainthow,
that TYCO being a big corporation would send in
their lawyers and it would be beneficial to all if the
employees talked to Mike and George. They could
do better talking to them because Mike and George
knew the plant operations and knew the employees
personally, whereas, a union coming in would not
know the plant operations and the company lawyers
would be an uninterested party and the union and
lawyers would have to go at it.
COATING PROI)UCTS. N I 5
1276 I)ECISIONS OF' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As already stated, all this stands uncontradicted. Not
one of the managing agents quoted appeared as a wit-
ness. The Respondent's purpose-clearly a prohibited
one-appears out of the mouths of managers. Mainth-
ow's attempt to explain it all away as only economically
motivated, is absolutely unconvincing. He spoke in gen-
eralities about "expansion" of business, "rapid growth,"
"seek other markets," the need to "beef up the produc-
tion," etc., but he articulated nothing definitive in any
way indicating unusual difficulties, vis-a-vis the employ-
ees and their relationship with management. He said the
operation had become much greater with time, but
against the stipulation that there were 74 employees in
the bargaining unit in January 1979; there is no contra-
diction of the straight testimony by Martin Grabeck, an
employee for 7 years, that when he started there were 60
employees. No records were produced to support any of
Mainthow's conclusionary statement. He tried to create
the impression that mass employee meetings like the ones
in December 1978 were an old story, but then admitted
past gatherings were limited to explaining a new pension
program and wishing the employees a Merry Christ-
mas-"that would be the extent of the meetings."
This entire program, fully schemed, was the Respond-
ent's reaction to the self-organization activities of its em-
ployees, and therefore in every step and detail proves
continuing and repetitive violations of the statute, as al-
leged in the complaint. The principle that under the pro-
scriptions of this statute an employer may not coerce its
employees in their right to join or not join a union by
paying them off, or bribing them away from their re-
solve with any form of improvements in their working
conditions, is too old to require citation of authority at
this late date.' It is enough to see the Supreme Court's
decision in N.L.R.B. v. Exchange Parts Company, 375
U.S. 405 (1964).
I find that by announcing on December 21, 1978, and
by granting on January 1, 1979, each of the following
benefits, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the
Act: (1) an hourly raise of 35 cents in pay to every em-
ployee; (2) an hourly raise of 10 cents per hour in premi-
um pay for second and third shift employees after 6
months of employment: (3) payment of sick leave taken
after an employee has started work; (4) cash payment for
unused sick leave; (5) an additional week of vacation for
employees with 15 years of service; and (6) the posting
of shift openings.
After virtually boxing the employees into expressing
approval of what it was offering, the Company, with
much publicity, put all the improved benefits into effect
on January 1. But with the Union's election petition now
A day) r two before the Board-conducted election on March 2,
Mainilhou poke at length to the employees on why they should reject
the Union as a bargaining agent. More than once he told them then that
when he gave them what they wanted in December, "management" had
no idea about their union activities As at the hearing. he was not being
truthful that day either After reminding the employees in repetitive
detail of each suhstantive improvement in their take home pay he had
given Mainthow commented that if the) solted in favor of the Union the
Respondent would feel it had "not accomplished" its objective when he
employees agreed to accept timely raises This was an unlmistakable re-
nildei to the ene of the quid pro quo expected of them in return for the
falsr
in the works, the unfair labor practices continued. Again,
the purpose, no doubt, to give further assurance that the
employees would vote "No."
During February, the month before the election, Fore-
man Farley ran into two employees at a public bar. As
employee Schroeder testified, Farley said to Mike Par-
tyka: "You are not voting for the union, are you?"
Before Partyka could answer, Farley himself said "no."
That same evening, again at the public place, Farley
came in and sat with some employees. Still from
Schroeder's testimony: ". . . he brought up a few ques-
tions about the union. He told us it would be better if we
didn't vote for the union; do it the company's way and
things will be better. Wouldn't have to pay union dues
.... He asked us if we were going to vote for the
union and no one answered." With this, Farley then said
to the men "that we would be forced to do more work if
the Union was voted." I find that by Farley's interroga-
tion of Partyka as to how he intended to vote in the
election, and by his threat that if the employees chose to
be represented by the Union they would be forced to
work harder, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
Jerry Michaud, another employee, was trying to win
promotion to leadman status because he felt he was
doing that kind of work. Stanley Reins' answer to his re-
quest, in February, was ". .. listen, the company has
done everything that they are going to do for the em-
ployees. He says-we gave you 35 cents more, and he
went through the whole thing that they said at that
meeting that they offered us, and he says, we are not
going to be promoting anybody else to leadman or noth-
ing while they are involved with the union campaign."
This statement by the plant manager that Michaud was
not being promoted to a higher paying job, which he de-
sired, because the employees were "involved with the
Union," was also restraint and coercion in violation of
Section 8(a)(1). I also find, as alleged in the complaint,
that this refusal to promote the man for such explicitly
stated reason constituted an unfair labor practice under
Section 8(a)(3)-unlawful discrimination, in this instance
adverse to the man's interest.
During all the talking that went on between members
of management and the employees in December and Jan-
uary about their gripes, or grievances, many subjects
were raised by the employees. Among them was dissatis-
faction about how their jobs were classified, and, there-
fore, how much money tey were getting. Generally,
Mainthow told them he could do nothing about that
right away, but would study the matter for possible
action later. When the employees received their pay-
checks on February 22, a number of them-the record
does not show just how many-were informed out of a
clear sky that they were then and there being given
raises. The amounts varied between 5 and 45 cents per
hour. The letter so informing them included the follow-
ing language:
You will recall that this was agreed to last Decem-
ber in a meeting we had with you, WITHOUT
COAFIING PO)DUCTS, INU 1 77
THE INTERVENTION OF A UNION. The job
classification increase to cover any inequities is an
addition to the wage increase given effective Janu-
ary 1, 1979 ....
WITHOUT A UNION and without the necessity
for your payment of dues and initiation fees we
have brought wages up. WITHOUT A UNION we
have set equal pay standards WITHOUT A
UNION we have stamped out favoritism. WITH-
OUT A STRIKE we have provided a Health Care
Plan, Pension Plan and benefits second to none in
the Metalizing Industry.
With this language, and emphasis, there could be no
clearer message to the employees that the purpose of all
of these further increases in pay was to restrain them
from voting in favor of the Union in the imminent elec-
tion. I find that the granting of these raises, in substantial
numbers, only 10 days before the election, was a repeat
performance by the Respondent only 10 days before the
election, was a repeat performance by the Respondent of
its pervasive determination to defeat the union campaign
by buying the employees away from their resolve, and,
again, with respect to each and every employee in-
volved, a direct violation of Section 8(a)(1).
Again, on February 28, now only 2 days before the
voting, Mainthow distributed a comprehensive letter to
every employee, urging them to "vote no." It listed a
number of reasons why they would be better off if they
heeded this advice. Among the stated reasons were the
following:
. . . The company does not intend to renegotiate
this package merely because a union may ask us to
do so.... Negotiations with a labor union would
not be conducted by us . . . How will this effect
you? First, you ill probably lose the ability to
leave the plant to eat and not have to punch out.
Why? Because Tyco will not want to put that in
writing and have to give it to all of its 20,000 em-
ployees in its II divisions.... Those of you who
have been employed after August 31, 1976, will lose
any pension benefits which you have accrued. You
will lose the health and welfare plan which you
now have.... They can call you out; but can they
bring you back?
I read this statement as advance warning to the em-
ployees that if they should persist in adhering to their
prounion resolve their efforts at collective bargaining
would be futile, and that they would, in consequence of
such a choice, be deprived of pension, health and welfare
benefits that were then an established part of their work
renumerations. By each of these threats the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
And finally, there is the following again uncontradict-
ed, testimony by former Foreman Pouliot. He was in
charge of the night shift, from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. On
Wednesday, February 28 [the election was scheduled to
take place Friday, March 21, Reins, the plant manager,
asked him for a list of probationary employees on the
night shift because, as he said, he needed it for a state-
ment he had to make. Reins then told Pouliot to hold all
the night shift group inside the plant at 7 a.m. the next
day, where he was going to tell them "if the union got
in, or if the vote went against the company and the
union got representation rights, that the probationary
employees the following Monday , ould not have a job
because the company did not need to carry these extra
employees." Reins also told the foreman after this. that if
he, Reins, was late in coming, Pouliot should himself
make the statement to the night shift.
During the night, Pouliot told the men they should
wait after clocking out. At 7 a.m. they stood around and
became impatient to go home. With Reins not sho' ing
up, Pouliot then read off the names of the probationers-
there were five-and repeated to the whole group pre-
cisely what Reins had instructed him to say, adding that
while he, personally, was opposed to such things, he had
no choice but to carry out the general manager's orders.
As the men became angry, Reins did arrive, and he re-
peated the same message himself to the men " . . that if
the union got in, the probationary employeecs ouldn't
have jobs because the cornpatn did not need to carry the
excess emploces." Two night-shift orkmenll who %erc
then present-Cisco and Curtis-corroborated l'ouliot as
to what he told the men that morning.
It would be difficult to imagine a more "outrageous"
unfair labor practice than this-repeated explicitly to the
night shift by both levels of supervisors above them.
That it was committed stands stark on the record. The
Respondent argues the unfair labor practice should be
excused, or overlooked, because before the election it
took steps to undo the damage the threat of immediate
discharge had had on the will of the employees. I finld no
merit in that defense-both because of the way
Mainthow went about it and because it was too late.
The election \was set to start early Friday morning.
During the night shift that ended that same morning-
just before the voting-Mainthovw had a short letter put
in the hands of the employees of that one shift. It reads:
To all employees: It has come to management's at-
tention that certain statements have been made to
probationary workers. The statements have been
made without the knowledge or authority of man-
agement. All company policies must either be deter-
mined or approved by me.
Mike Mainthow
The company also posted a notice in the plant during
the workday of March I-Thursday-addressed to all
employees. It reads:
Tomorrow you vote on Representation. Manage-
ment regrets this campaign has gotten out of hand.
False charges by the Union has divided our employ-
ees. No matter what has been stated no one will
lose their jobs as a result of the outcome of this
election. Form your own employee committee and
achieve more! We urge you to vote N\'o!2
Thai these to documents-the leiter put Into the hands of the night
shift men and the notice posted on the %sall-aere ued precisels that
wa was stipulated h) counsel lfor the Respondent at h start of the
hearing Testifying at the end of the hearing. Maiilhos said he aiso senl
telegrams to reassure each of the men ni the first andl ct lld shifts he
Ct)AiJN(i RDUCTS. lNC 2??
1278 I)[CISI()NS ()OF NATIONAL LABOR RELAlI()NS ()ARI)
There is equivocation in each of these statements. In
the first, the assurance that "no one will lose their jobs"
follows immediately after the phrase that there had been
"false charges by the union." On its face it gives assur-
ance against union threats to job security, and then asks
for a no vote in the election. There is no reference to the
direct threat of discharge voiced by the plant manager to
these very employees less than 24 hours earlier.
As to the posted notice, it not only makes no reference
to Reins' threat of outright discharge, but it does not
even obliquely mention that threat at all. After so deadly
a straight threat by the top man in the plant, the mere
statement, by some other member of management, that
"certain statements" were made without his approval, is
no retraction at all.3
I find, of course, that by these direct threats spoken by
the night-shift foreman and again by the plant manager,
to discharge employees in retaliation should they vote
for the Union in the Board-conducted election, the Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the statute.
D. Alleged 8(a)(3) Violations
As already stated, Michael Costa, 3 years as a produc-
tion employee, was the man who started the union
movement, and was more responsible for the growth of
the idea than any other workman. Mainthow knew all
about it. Costa worked on one job after another. One of
his longer assignments was as one of a team of four on
what is called a laminating machine, the top man called
the operator, the next in line called assistant operator,
and below them a front end man and finally a glue man,
at the bottom. The least desirable job, for which less skill
was required and which paid less, was that of a glue
man. His work was "unpleasant and smelly," with "dirty
fumes" near him, as Costa said without contradiction.
The men advanced upwards on this machine, as the need
arose and as their skill progressed. The operator was in
charge, and the men earned more as they advanced up-
wards. Costa started on this machine as a glue man in
December 1976, and moved up to frontend man in the
summer of 1977, with an increase in pay. He remained
there until the spring or early summer of 1978. From
there he was put on a slitter machine, which he de-
scribed as a more desirable job. Costa testified that the
plant manager then, Summers, told him he was offered
the new opening because he was easily trainable and in-
telligent. This change of job also brought Costa a 25-
cent-per-hour raise.
In January 1979 a quality control section was estab-
lished, and Costa was transferred there as a laboratory
technician, under the chemist, and without any raise. He
did paperwork and testing of materials. Up to this point,
as from the start of his employment, Costa always
worked on the first shift. On May 10, 1979, he was told
that the quality control operation of the first shift only
was being eliminated for budget reasons and that since
his assignment of the moment ended, he was being trans-
ferred back to a laminating machine as a glue man, but
this time on the night shift. Costa explained to Guidetti,
said he had a copy of that telegram, but not with him. In the end, he said
the posted notice was the telegram. His story about this threat of dis-
charges only served to discredit him all the more in this proceeding.
a See, The Kerite Company, a Subsidiary of Harvey lubbell. Inc., 236
NLRB 1084 (1978)
his supervisor in charge of the quality control room, that
he could not accept the night-shift assignment because he
worked a second job at night, and because it would pres-
ent an insurmountable transportation obstacle to him.
The Company insisted and Costa had no alternative but
to cease work here because he could not come at night.
The complaint alleges that this was the Respondent's
technique for getting rid of Costa in retaliation for his
union activity-a constructive discharge-and therefore
a violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. Mainthow, the
sole witness speaking for the Company at the hearing,
disclaimed any illegal purpose in his mind.
I find, considering a number of pertinent factors, that
management insisted upon this unacceptable transfer for
Costa, as a further step to assure complete elimination of
any union ideas among its employees. The evidentiary
proof supporting this inference of illegal motivation is
both direct and indirect. At the December 14 meeting,
when he spoke at length explaining the diversified bene-
fits he was disposed to grant the overall group,
Mainthow commented that ". .. even after all these
things were given out there were some people that were
still below the level .... " That the president's objec-
tive that day was to stop the union movement, is an ab-
solute fact on this record. At that point in his comment,
Mainthow pointed a finger at Costa and said, "You Mi-
chael Costa are one individual who will be taken care of
at a later date." That he said these things is from Costa's
uncontradicted testimony.
Costa's duties in the quality control room required his
going to other places in the plant. He testified that there
came a time when Guidetti, his supervisor, told him
"every time I was seen outside the lab that he [Guidetti]
would catch hell from Stanley Reins because he wanted
to keep me in the lab as much as possible. They didn't
want me wandering around." The witness also quoted
Guidetti as telling him that the plant manager had direct-
ed that Costa "could use the pot to go to the bathroom.
I didn't have to go out of the lab." On one occasion, still
according to Costa, Guidetti told him he could not un-
derstand Reins' attitude, since Mainthow had said at a
management meeting that the past should be forgotten.
To this-and now it is the witness, Costa, relating what
Guidetti, the supervisor, told him about the plant manag-
er's attitude: "Mr. Rein told Mr. Guidetti that they
couldn't forget about the past and I wouldn't stop with
the union activities, that they would make it so bad for
me that I would quit and Mr. Guidetti asked Mr. Reins
why didn't he just fire me and he said that would be a
little obvious at this time, just to come right out and fire
me."
Counsel for the Respondent objected to this testimony
on the ground of hearsay. But Guidetti was not present-
ed as a witness; neither was Reins called. Management
speaks to employees through its supervisors. As with the
matter of knowledge about the union activity altogether,
Mainthow disassociated himself from all of this; he
denied having spoken such threats of retaliation. But in-
sofar as its rank-and-file employees are concerned, what
is spoken to them by their immediate supervisors is what
COATING; PRODUCTS. INC. 1279
affects their attitude and behavior, and also what reflects
what is in the mind of management. The boss who lives
in New York and works in New Jersey is too far re-
moved from their lives. That the Respondent-the em-
ployer in this New Britain plant-was determined to dis-
criminate against Costa one way or another, is clearly
proved on this record.
Mainthow also said that he did not know Costa had a
night job when this matter was decided. But so far as
this record shows it was the plant manager who made
the immediate decision, and he did know, as, again, the
uncontradicted testimony proves. Both Guidetti and Dr.
Cohen, the chemist, were upset when this decision was
made, and told Costa they had nothing to do with it.
They told Reins about Costa's night job, and that he,
therefore, could not accept the night shift, but their
report of this conversation to Costa was that Reins did
not care. Costa had greater seniority with the Company
than Kevin Scanlon, then working on the first-shift lami-
nating machine as glue man. Costa asked why Scanlon
was not moved to the night shift instead, so that he
could continue to work. He received no coherent re-
sponse. The supervisor's answer was: "it doesn't matter."
When to all this is added the overall picture of deter-
mined resolution in the Respondent, as evidenced by the
many other unfair labor practices committed, to put a
stop to all prounion feelings among the employees, the
conclusion is inescapable that its purpose in transfering
Costa to the night shift was to achieve his termination in-
directly. I find that the Respondent effectively dis-
charged Costa in violation of Section 8(a)(3).
E. Alleged 8(a)(5) Violation
There is no dispute as to the appropriate bargaining
unit. It is:
All full-time and regular part-time production and
maintenance employees of Respondent employed at
its New Britain plant, excluding office clerical em-
ployees, professional employees, watchmen, guards,
and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
As already stated, there were 74 employees in the unit
on January 19, 1979, about 2 weeks after the Respondent
ignored the Union's December 28, 1978, demand letter
and shortly after the election petition was filed on Janu-
ary 8. There was received in evidence a single exhibit
consisting of 36 regular union authorization cards as to
which the parties stipulated all are authentic and signed
by employees included in the bargaining unit. All these
are dated November 25 to December 1, inclusive.4
Six other authorization cards were received in evi-
dence, all bearing names of employees included in the
stipulated list of employees at work at the time of the
events. Saucier testified directly that he signed the card
dated November 25, and no question was raised as to its
authenticity. Two other employee witnesses-Frank
Rogers and David Ringo-testified that they each per-
sonally signed cards dated November 29 and December
15, respectively. On cross-examination counsel for the
4 All the authorization cards received in evidence are in the name of
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations
After the signing of the cards the employees shifted to District Lodge
No 9:. of the IAM See Dolors. Inc. 9 N.RR 550 (1952)
Respondent questioned the veracity of these two men,
suggesting the written names appearing on their cards
were not in the handwriting of the witnesses. In support
of that contention, counsel asked each of them to write
their names on sheets of paper, then also received in evi-
dence. On examination of these documents, and after
comparing the handwriting there with that appearing on
the cards themselves, I have no reason to doubt the truth
of the witnesses' testimony that the cards in evidence in
fact were signed by them personally. I therefore find that
the cards of Saucier, Rogers, and Ringo are authentic
and may be counted in favor of the Union's position.
It therefore appears thus far that by December 15, before
the Union's demand was received by the Company and
ignored, the Union in fact represented a majority of the
employees in the bargaining unit.
The remaining three cards bear the signatures of John
Saja, Mark Violette, and Rodney Lindsly, and are dated
November 28, November 29, and November 28, respec-
tively. Costa, the principal solicitor for the Union, testi-
fied that on the dates appearing on the cards of Saja and
Violette, each of these employees handed him already
signed cards in the parking lot of the plant. Employee
Rogers gave similar testimony respecting the cards
signed by Lindsly, that Lindsly had handed the previous-
ly signed card to him in the parking lot. Again there is
no sufficient reason for not counting these three addition-
al cards in further proof of the Union's majority.5 I find
that by the end of December 1978, 42 of the 74 employ-
ees included in the bargaining unit had authorized the
Union to bargain on their behalf.
I find that, apace with its disregard of the demand for
recognition and its simultaneous commission of unfair
labor practices without number throughout the months
of December, January, and February, the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
F. Alleged 8(a)(2) Violations
The vote count on the day of the election stood 32 to
35 against the Union. On March 4, 2 days later, before
the time provided for in the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions for the filing of objections had expired, Mainthow
called another mass meeting of employees, again on com-
pany paid time. He told them to select and establish an
employee committee to meet monthly with management
for the purpose of discussing any remaining problems
they might want to bring up relating to their jobs. He
asked them to decide which representatives they wished
and then stepped out of the room. The employees did
that. Shortly thereafter, Mainthow returned, met with
the committee, and discussed what requests they had.
These included: locked tool boxes, picnic tables, a dental
plan, longer lunch periods, permission to leave the plant
during lunch periods, a safety committee, and other
changes in the applicable rules and regulations of em-
ployment.
As a witness, Mainthow tried to create the impression
that this was no more than a right any employer has
after its employees have rejected collective bargaining
through a union with finality-to deal with employees
5 Delore. Inc.. upra
COATING PRODUCTS. INC
12#0 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
directly. In truth, however, he had already told the em-
ployees, before the election, this is how he wanted things
done, and without a union. In his letter sent to all em-
ployees on February 28, an appeal for "no" votes in the
coming election, he told them, among other things: "the
company does not intend to renegotiate this package
merely because a union may ask us to do so." More di-
rectly, in a prepared talk he personally gave all of the
assembled employees that same day, he included the fol-
lowing: "My suggestion to you as our employees, is that
you should consider appointing your own committee,
with representatives from each department to meet with
management on a monthly basis to air your problems in
an open forum with your management which I am a part
of that team. This would give you a continuing opportu-
nity on a one-to-one basis to make your needs known,
and to give management the opportunity to understand
the problems which can be corrected and beneficial to
both you and this company." Mainthow's suggestion that
his proposal of what was to become, in effect, a compa-
ny union, was only conceived after the election, only
added to the falsity of his total testimony. Even the
notice he posted the very day before the election, asser-
tedly to offset the manager's outright threat of discharge,
closed with the statement: "Form your own committee
and achieve more!"
Management met with the employee committee a
number of times after March 4, the last such meeting
about 4 weeks before the hearing in this case. While the
evidence does not detail what subjects were discussed or
what concessions were made, Mainthow himself said the
purpose was so the committee could ". . . air out their
grievances, problems and also give management some
opportunity to present the problems that management
might have so that there could be a sufficient give and
take between management and labor to reach the kind of
harmonious relationship that would better improve con-
ditions .... " This was the witness admitting that even
before the election took place, management attempted to
bring about "collective bargaining" directly with the em-
ployees in place of the union relationship which the em-
ployees were seeking to establish.
I find that by telling the employees to establish what I
will call the "employee committee," while a Board elec-
tion proceeding was pending, and by bargaining directly
with that employee committee on company paid time,
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(2) of the Act.
Case 1-RC-16126
I hereby recommend that the results of the March 2,
1979. election in Case -RC-16126 be, and they hereby
are, set aside.
IV. 'IHE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with the operations
of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf-
fic, and commerce among the several States and tend to
lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
The final question in this case is what shall the remedy
be? It is an area where one does not quote Gilbert and
Sullivan, because there is nothing criminal involved. But
it is still a fact that the remedy must fit the offense. As
always, the Respondent must be ordered to cease and
desist from again committing the kind of unfair labor
practices proved on this record.
However, the statutory violations committed were so
flagrant, so numerous, so pervasive and effective in their
calculated intent, that unless the Respondent be ordered
affirmatively to bargain with the Union now, this entire
proceeding would be no more than a meaningless ges-
ture. There is absolutely no question but that the Re-
spondent's swift reaction to the union organizing activity
was designed to erode union support. Interrogations, so-
licitation of grievances, unprecedented largesse in giving
raises to induce "joint"-i.e., management and employ-
ee-action in place of employer and union bargaining,
and final outright removal of the principal union activist,
give promise of continued disregard of the Act. And that
the technique used effectively destroyed the employees'
resolve could not be clearer.
Before the first across-the-board 35 cents per hour
raise-a substantial one even at today's prices-was gen-
erously announced, a clear majority of the employees
had documented their desire for union representation. By
the time still further, very widespread raises had been
given again in February, they lost their enthusiasm and a
majority voted no in the election, exactly as the Re-
spondent kept urging them to do. The reason is very
simple. Without a union-to quote the Respondent's oft
repeated phrase-the employees were given just about
all they could reasonably have expected without paying
union dues. Why should they vote for union representa-
tion tomorrow?
This is precisely what the Supreme Court was talking
about in N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co., Inc., et al., 395
U.S. 575, 614 (1969), when it said that where the unfair
labor practices committed are of "such a nature their co-
ercive effects cannot be eliminated by the application of
traditional remedies, with the result that a fair and reli-
able election cannot be held," an affirmative bargaining
order is appropriate.6
If ever there was a case in which a bargaining order is
dictated, this is it. It presents a much more pervasive pic-
ture of interference than when the employer has fright-
ened the employees with threats of discharge. When the
Board orders a respondent to stop giving raises to induce
employees away from their union resolve, it never orders
that the raises be canceled, or that the extra money al-
ready paid the employees be returned to the giver. The
situation here is therefore different from unfair labor
practices like threats of discharge, or mere promises of
future benefits. When an employer posts a notice saying
it will not again voice threats, or promise benefits, the
a See, more recently, Frederick; Foodland Inc. d/b/a Bucyns oodland
NVorth Bucyrus Foodland South. 247 NLRB No. 38, and Idaho (and'
Company, 218 NLRB 352 (1975).
COATING PRODUCTS, INC 1281
lingering effect of the misconduct is, to a measure, les-
sened. Not so in material things of value which employ-
ees are permitted to keep. So long as the employees con-
tinue to receive the benefits, the money remains a con-
stant reminder of the employer's unlawful bribe. More,
the money continues the message-as the Supreme Court
also said-that "the source of benefits now conferred is
also the source from which future benefits must flow and
which might dry up if it is not obliged." Exchange Parts,
supra.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By engaging in conduct described and detailed in
section III, above, the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act.
2. The unit set forth herein constitutes a unit appropri-
ate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
3. On or about January 3, 1979, and at all material
times thereafter, the Union represented a majority of em-
ployees in the appropriate unit, and has been the exclu-
sive representative of said employees for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a)
of the Act.
4. The Respondent has refused to bargain with the
Union in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
5. The above described unfair labor practices affect
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]