Cyntell Tool Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 11, 1972

196 N.L.R.B. 1032 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

1032 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Cyntell Tool Company and International Union,
United Automobile , Aerospace and Agricultural Im-
plement Workers of America (UAW). Case 7-CA-
8753
May 11, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND
KENNEDY
Upon a charge filed on June 3, 1971, by the Inter-
national Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW),
herein called the Union, and duly served on the Cyn-
tell Tool Company, herein called the Respondent, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board, by the Regional Director for Region 7, issued
a complaint on August 17, 1971,' against Respondent,
alleging that Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended. Copies of the charge, complaint, and notice
of hearing before a Trial Examiner were duly served
on the parties to this proceeding.
In substance, the complaint alleges that the
Respondent's conduct at its Melvindale, Michigan,
plant violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The specific
allegations of conduct, occurring between December
3, 1970, and May 14, 1971, are: (1) threatening em-
ployees with plant closure because of their union ac-
tivities, sympathies, and desires; (2) coercively
interrogating employees concerning their union activ-
ities, sympathies, and desires; (3) creating the impres-
sion of surveillance of the employees' protected
concerted activities by advising them it knew who had
voted for the Union and against it; (4) distributing a
campaign letter to create the impression that the em-
ployees' efforts to seek representation by the Union
were futile and detrimental to them; (5) threatening
employees with adverse working conditions because
of their union activities, sympathies, and desires; (6)
reprimanding employees because of their conversa-
tions concerning the Union; and (7) threatening em-
ployees with discharge and adverse personnel action
because of their union activities, sympathies, and de-
sires.
The Respondent filed its answer on August 19,
1971, denying the alleged violations of Section 8(a)(1)
and their connection with interstate commerce under
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Then, on January 13,
1 The Motion for Summary Judgment inadvertently gives this date as
August 7, 1971.
1972, the Respondent withdrew its answer to the com-
plaint.
Following this withdrawal, counsel for the General
Counsel moved for summary judgment, arguing that
the allegations should be deemed admitted under Sec-
tion 102.20 of the Board's Rules and Regulations.
Subsequently, the proceeding was transferred to the
Board and a Notice To Show Cause why the General
Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment should not
be granted was issued by the Board. The Respondent
did not respond to the notice. However, the Union did
file a response in which it argued for a remedy in
addition to that requested by the General Counsel.
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.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following:
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
Section 102.20 of the Board Rules and Regulations
requires that the Respondent file an answer within 10
days of service of the complaint, and if no answer is
filed, the allegations in the complaint will be deemed
admitted as true, unless good cause to the contrary is
shown. The Respondent's answer here was filed on
August 19, 1971, 2 days after the complaint was filed
and well within the 10-day period. The allegations of
the complaint were denied or admitted with the re-
quired specificity. However, the Respondent subse-
quently withdrew its answer without giving any
reason. The withdrawal of an answer of necessity has
the same effect as a failure to file, and thus the allega-
tions of the complaint must be deemed admitted as
true 2 as if no answer had ever been filed. As there is
an absence of any showing or good cause to the con-
trary, and in accordance with the provisions of Sec-
tion 102.20, the allegations of the complaint are found
to be true.
On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is a Michigan corporation en-
gaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of
tools, fixtures, special machinery, and related prod-
ucts at its principal office and place of business, 17950
2 Hermann Equipment Manufacturing Company, Inc., 156 NLRB 716, 718
(1966); Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local Union 215, Intl. Brthd of
Teamsters (The Bedford-Nugent Corp.), 137 NLRB 573, 574 (1962); accord,
Truck Drivers Local No. 696 (Freeto Construction Co., Inc.), 149 NLRB 23,
24, in. 2 (1962) (denials of knowledge of allegations withdrawn).
196 NLRB No. 150
CYNTELL TOOL COMPANY
Allen Road, Melvindale, Michigan. In the course and
conduct of its business during 1970, a representative
period, the Respondent purchased and received steel,
tools, and other goods and materials valued in excess
of $50,000 at its plant from points outside the State of
Michigan, and shipped products valued in excess of
$50,000 to points outside the State of Michigan.
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Respon-
dent is, and has been at all times material herein, an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectu-
ate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Aero-
space and Agricultural Implement Workers of Ameri-
ca (UAW), is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 8(a)(1)
At various times between December 3, 1970, and
May 14, 1971, the Respondent by its agent, William
Bernath, (1) threatened employees with plant closure
because of their union activities, sympathies, and de-
sires ; (2) coercively interrogated employees concern-
ing their union activities, sympathies, and desires; (3)
created the impression of surveillance of the employ-
ees' protected concerted activities by advising them it
knew who had voted for the Union, and against it; (4)
distributing a letter to create the impression that the
employees' efforts to seek representation by the Un-
ion were futile and detrimental to them; (5) threat-
ened employees with adverse working conditions
because of their union activities, sympathies, and de-
sires ; (6) reprimanded employees because of their
conversations concerning the Union; and (7) threat-
ened employees with discharge or adverse personnel
action because of their union activities, sympathies,
and desires. We find that by this conduct the Respon-
dent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed under
Section 7 of the Act. By this conduct the Respondent
has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with its operations
described in section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
1033
Having found that the Respondent has been en-
gaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1), we shall order that it cease and desist
from that conduct and take certain affirmative action
designed to effect the policies of the Act, as ordered
below.
In addition to the above, the Union requests an
expanded remedy providing for (1) reading of the
appropriate notice to all employees assembled on
company premises during company time by the Re-
spondent or Board agent; (2) mailing a copy of the
appropriate notice to each employee at company ex-
pense; and (3) upon request of the Union and its
representatives, reasonable access, for a 6-month peri-
od, to Respondent's bulletin boards and all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
In support of this request, the Union argues that a
prior notice posted to a settlement agreement of an
earlier unfair labor practice complaint covered "al-
most the same sort of" employer conduct and that the
same notice, thus, would not be effective.
We do not believe that the unfair labor practices
involved here require such extraordinary remedy.
H. W. Elson Bottling Company, 155 NLRB 714 (1965),
and The Loray Corporation, 184 NLRB No. 57 (1970),
cited in support of additional remedy, are not rele-
vant. In those cases the Board was concerned with
"outrageous" conduct by employers that prevented
unions from attaining majority status to the destruc-
tion of employee rights. Here there has been no such
showing, and the present case is the first in which the
Respondent has actually been found guilty by the
Board of violating the Act. Moreover, unlike the prior
settlement agreement, the present Decision and Order
is enforceable by court order, if necessary, and subse-
quent contempt proceedings, if appropriate.
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts
and the entire record, makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, Cyntell Tool Company, is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Union, United Automobile, Aero-
space and Agricultural Implement Workers of Ameri-
ca (UAW), is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By the acts enumerated in section III, the Re-
spondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act and by those acts has been en-
1034 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
Section 8(a)(I) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Cyn-
tell Tool Company, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening employees with plant closure be-
cause of their union activities, sympathies, and de-
sires.
(b) Coercively interrogating employees concerning
their union activities, sympathies, and desires.
(c) Creating the impression of engaging in surveil-
lance of the employees' protected concerted activities
by advising them it knows who had voted for the
Union and against it.
(d) Distributing a campaign letter to create the im-
pression that the employees' efforts to seek represent-
ation by the Union were futile and detrimental to
them.
(e) Threatening employees with adverse working
conditions because of their union activities, sympa-
thies, and desires.
(f) Reprimanding employees because of their con-
versations concerning the Union.
(g) Threatening employees with discharge and ad-
verse personnel action because of their union activi-
ties, sympathies, and desires.
(h) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the
Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its Melvindale, Michigan, plant copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."3 Copies of
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 7, after being duly signed by
Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Re-
spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive 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 7, in
3 In the event 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 be changed to read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National
Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the
policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we here-
by notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with plant
closure because of their union activities, sympa-
thies, and desires.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate employees
concerning their union activities, sympathies,
and desires.
WE WILL NOT create the impression of engaging
in surveillance of the employees' protected con-
certed activities by advising them we know who
voted for the Union and against it.
WE WILL NOT distribute a campaign letter to
create the impression that the employees' efforts
to seek representation by the Union are futile and
detrimental to them.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with adverse
working conditions because of their union activi-
ties, sympathies, and desires.
WE WILL NOT reprimand employees because of
their conversations concerning the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with dis-
charge and adverse personnel action because of
their union activities, sympathies, and desires.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner in-
terfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act.
CYNTELL TOOL COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, by anyone.
CYNTELL TOOL COMPANY 1035
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive ance with its provisions may be directed to the
days from the date of posting and must net be altered, Board's Office, 500 Book Building, 1249 Washington
defaced, or covered by any other material. Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan 48226, Telephone 313-
Any questions concerning this notice or compli- 226-3200.