Dresser Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 21, 1986

281 N.L.R.B. 132 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Dresser Industries , Inc. and Michael Minutolo. Case
39-CA-2804
21 August 1986
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND STEPHENS
On 30 June 1986 Administrative Law Judge
Steven Davis issued the attached decision. The
General Counsel filed an exception to the remedy
and a supporting brief. The Respondent filed an an-
swering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exception and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,' and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Dresser In-
dustries, Inc., Stratford, Connecticut, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Order.
1 In sec IV,B of his decision the judge states. "I accordingly find that
Ridolfi's overriding purpose in questioning Ridolfi " The context of
this statement makes it obvious that it should read as follows Ri-
dolfi's overriding purpose in questioning Minutolo "
Peter Gallaudet, Esq., for the General Counsel.
William C Bruce, Esq., of New Haven, Connecticut, for
the Respondent.
James Kestell, Esq. (Kestell, Pogue & Gould, Esqs.), of
Hartford, Connecticut, for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
STEVEN DAVIS, Administrative Law Judge. Based on
a charge and an amended charge filed by Michael Minu-
tolo, an individual, on 15 October and 21 November
1985,1 respectively, the National Labor Relations Board
issued a complaint against Dresser Industries, Inc. (Re-
spondent) on 27 November.
The complaint alleges that Respondent (a) threatened
to transfer Minutolo to a different department because he
filed a grievance and (b) interrogated Minutolo regarding
the filing of charges under the Act, his union activities
and sympathies, and the union activities of other employ-
ees, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
' All dates hereafter are in 1985 unless otherwise stated
Respondent's answer denied the material allegations of
the complaint and, on 14 February 1986, this case was
heard before me in Hartford, Connecticut.
On the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after consideration of the
briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent, I
make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
Respondent , a Delaware corporation , having an office
and place of business in Stratford , Connecticut, is en-
gaged in the manufacture and nonretail sale of pressure
gauges and temperature instruments . During the calendar
year ending 31 December 1984, Respondent, in the
course and conduct of its business operations , purchased
and received at its Stratford facility products , goods, and
materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points
outside the State of Connecticut . Respondent admits, and
I find, that it is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION STATUS
Respondent admits, and I find, that Food, Beverage
and Express Drivers, Teamsters Local No. 145, a/w
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America (the Union) is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE FACTS
A. The Alleged Threat
Respondent and the Union have had collective-bar-
gaining agreements for many years.
Minutolo, the Charging Party, employed by Respond-
ent for 30 years, had been working in department 171 for
25 years. He was a leadman whose job was to set up ma-
chinery for others to run, and instruct new employees in
their operation.
In September and October, certain departments were
reorganized, with department 171 receiving new machin-
ery which Minutolo was not familiar with. Also, on I
October, Anthony Farrar, a new supervisor and general
foreman, was assigned to Minutolo's department.2 Prior
to that time, Minutolo had no contact with Farrar.
Abel Ferreira, a coworker, drove Minutolo to and
from work from about February or March to about De-
cember. At that time Ferreira was campaigning for the
position of secretary-treasurer of the Union, which he
won in an election in December. The election was con-
tested, and Ferreira defeated the incumbent, Kuba. Minu-
tolo asked, and Ferreira agreed to, and did help support
a political candidate who was running for mayor of
Bridgeport.3
2 Farrar is an admitted supervisor under Sec 2(11) of the Act.
2 Ferreira owned an apartment that he rented as the campaign head-
quarters of the candidate
281 NLRB No. 23
DRESSER INDUSTRIES
On 3 October Ferreira met with Minutolo in Minuto-
lo's home and helped write a grievance for Minutolo.
The grievance stated that Minutolo was improperly ac-
cused of (a) timesheet irregularities in May and August4
and (b) producing a wrong-sized part , for which he was
disciplined on 2 October . According to the grievance, on
3 October, Farrar gave Minutolo a list of rush jobs and
told him to "hurry up , hurry up ." The grievance also
stated that Minutolo was
the object of harrassment , overt abuse, age discrimi-
nation and systematic persecution in an attempt by
managerial personnel to illegally discipline and dis-
charge me because of my affiliation with Abel Fer-
reira and my support of the candidacy of the Fer-
reira slate for elective union office.
The next day, 4 October, Minutolo gave the grievance
to Shop Steward Charles Douthit, who gave it to Farrar.
He heard nothing further about it that day.
On 6 October, Ferreira again wrote another grievance
for Minutolo . This grievance concerned action allegedly
taken by Foreman Farrar on 4 October. According to
the grievance, Farrar asked Minutolo for a list of rush
jobs. Minutolo told him that the work was completed,
but Farrar could not find the items . Minutolo's grievance
complained that Farrar observed him closely; stood next
to him as he worked; and urged him to "hurry up." In
addition, later that day, Minutolo found that his machine
was not operating properly. He asked Farrar to call an
engineer or repair person . Farrar allegedly yelled at him:
"Fuck you, you're the set-up man , you do it."6 The
grievance added that Farrar and another foreman were
"persecuting harassing , intimidating and mentally and
verbally abusing" him.
The following day, 7 October , Minutolo gave his
grievance to Steward Douthit.
About 1 hour later, Farrar and Douthit stood near
Abel Ferreira. Ferriera heard Farrar say, "I've had
enough of this shit," and he asked Douthit to get Minu-
tolo.6 A 15- to 20-minute meeting was then held with
Farrar, Minutolo, and Stewards Douthit and William
Ryan.
According to Minutolo, Farrar, holding the grievance
presented that morning , asked , "What's this?" Minutolo
asked him to read it. Farrar refused and asked Minutolo
to read it to him. Minutolo asked Douthit to read it, but
he did not. Farrar asked Minutolo who wrote the griev-
ance and was told that a friend wrote it. Farrar read it
and denied demanding that Minutolo fix the machine.
Minutolo insisted that Farrar said that, and repeated the
expletive Farrar used . Farrar then rose from his chair,
threw the grievance on his desk, said he had to see his
boss, and said , "You're going to get out of this depart-
ment." Ferreira stated that he observed the meeting
4 The grievance stated that union representatives did nothing to repre-
sent him.
6 Minutolo claimed that requiring him to fix a machine was a violation
of the contract because he was ordered to perform work outside his job
classification.
6 Farrar held a paper but Ferreira could not see what it said
133
through a window and saw Farrar yelling and his arms
moving . He could not hear what was said.
Farrar testified that the purpose of the session was a
grievance meeting to discuss the grievance given him
that day and to find out where the parts were that Minu-
tolo claimed to have completed . Farrar asked Minutolo
to read and explain the grievance to him because he
could not understand some of the words.? Farrar stated
that they discussed the grievance , and that he told Minu-
tolo what he expected of him as a leadman. He further
told Minutolo that if he could not do the job, Farrar
would recommend that he be taken off the job. He ad-
mitted telling Minutolo to fix the machine , but denied
cursing him.
Farrar denied shouting or yelling at Minutolo or
threatening him during the meeting , but he admitted
being "frustrated" because he had spoken to Minutolo
several times in the past week regarding his job perform-
ance, but no improvement was forthcoming . It was Far-
rar's impression that Minutolo was "oversensitive" to
criticism , who wrongly believed that Farrar was harass-
ing him when he was merely trying to move production
along.
Shortly after the events of 7 October, Minutolo again
sought help from Ferreira, who suggested that a charge
be filed with the Board . About 10 October, Minutolo
gave a copy of the charge to Farrar. The charge, filed
on 15 October , stated:
That on or about October 7, 1985 , the above
named employer through its general foreman Tony
Farrar , threatened to retaliate against me for having
filed a grievance against him. By this and other har-
assment I have been receiving on the hands of Mr.
Farrar, I believe I am being discriminated against
because of my protected concerted activities, in
filing a grievance and because I am known as a sup-
porter of Abe Ferreira against the Kuba slate.
B. The Alleged Interrogation
Before 29 October , a grievance meeting was held with
Personnel Manager Mel Salisbury , whose responsibility
is to investigate grievances . At the meeting, in addition
to Salisbury, Farrar, Minutolo, and a shop steward were
present. Following the meeting, Salisbury told Industrial
Relations Manager William Ridolfi that he found no evi-
dence to support Minutolo's claim that Farrar harassed,
threatened , or intimidated him.8
Ridolfi then decided to meet with Minutolo for the
following reasons : (a) to search for evidence to deter-
mine whether there was merit to the charge and to the
grievance; (b) to determine whether Farrar was threaten-
ing, harassing , or intimidating Minutolo ; and (c) to pre-
pare a response to the charge . Ridolfi met privately with
Minutolo because he did not want Minutolo to feel
threatened or intimidated by the presence of others.
The 15 - to 20-minute meeting was held on 20 October
in Ridolfi 's office, to which Minutolo was summoned. It
T An example given by Farrar was that Minutolo claimed that Farrar
was "impeding my mobility " by standing close to him.
8 Ridolfi is an admitted supervisor under Sec . 2(11) of the Act.
134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was the first time they met and it was the first time Min-
utolo had ever been in Ridolfi 's office.
According to Minutolo , Ridolfi opened the meeting by
asking , "What's this charge?" Minutolo explained that
the charge was filed to protect himself and his job be-
cause Farrar constantly harassed him. Ridolfi asked
whether Farrar harassed him because of Ferreira and
whether he speaks with Ferreira . Minutolo answered
that he thought so, adding that he speaks with Ferreira
because they participated in the mayoral campaign. Min-
utolo explained the nature of the harassment: that Farrar
told him to hurry up and complete his work.
According to Ridolfi , at the start of the meeting he
told Minutolo that it was an informal session to deter-
mine whether Farrar had threatened , intimidated , or har-
assed him . Ridolfi did not tell Minutolo that he did not
have to speak with him, or that he would not be disci-
plined for what he said or did not say at the meeting that
day. He told him that he had read the charge and- griev-
ance and that he would not tolerate the alleged improper
treatment of employees by supervisors , and he asked
Minutolo for his version of the facts . Minutolo explained
that at the grievance meeting of 7 October Farrar denied
the grievance, said he would see his supervisor, and
"stormed out" of the office . He also related that Farrar
followed him very closely at work ; stood next to him;
told him that he was too old for the job; and yelled and
cursed at him.
Ridolfi asked Minutolo why Farrar treated him this
way. Minutolo replied that he did not know-perhaps
because Farrar said that Minutolo was too old.
Ridolfi also asked whether Farrar questioned him re-
garding politics or internal union affairs . Minutolo ex-
plained that he and Ferreira were friendly due to their
work in the mayoral campaign , and suggested that
Farrar might be retaliating against him because of his as-
sociation with Ferreira. Ridolfi followed up by inquiring
whether Farrar questioned him about his relationship
with Ferreira, or asked him what he spoke to Ferreira
about . Minutolo denied being asked those questions by
Farrar.
Ridolfi also asked Minutolo whether Minutolo speaks
with other employees in the department , to which Minu-
tolo said he did, and Ridolfi then asked whether Farrar
questioned him about speaking to other workers or in-
quired about the nature of their conversation . Minutolo
answered that Farrar did not do so.
Ridolfi then asked why he believed that Farrar's treat-
ment of him was due to his association with Ferreira.9
Minutolo replied that perhaps it was because of Fer-
reira's intraunion activities , adding that he did not know
what Ferreira was doing and that, in any event, it was
none of Minutolo 's business . Ridolfi then assured Minu-
tolo that discussions involving internal union affairs and
politics are Minutolo 's business , and are not the concern
of any supervisor, except that such conversations should
not interfere with production . Ridolfi concluded the
meeting by saying that he would investigate the allega-
9 As set forth above , the charge stated that Minutolo believed that he
was discriminated against because , inter alia, "I am known as a supporter
of Abe Ferreira against the Kuba slate."
tions, and if they were true he would make certain the
alleged offending treatment would stop and take other
action if necessary.
About 1 or 2 days later, Ridolfi interviewed Farrar,
and Stewards Douthit and Ryan . They denied all the al-
legations made by Minutolo , and Ridolfi concluded that
his claims had no merit . He did not inform Minutolo of
his findings , but sent a letter to the Board on 2 Novem-
ber, in response to the charge , which stated in material
part:
The Company has not found any evidence whatso-
ever to substantiate Mr. Minutolo's allegation that
our General Foreman, Tony Farrar, threatened to
retaliate or harass him for filing a grievance, or for
being a self-proclaimed supporter of Mr. Ferreira.
Mr. Minutolo freely admits that he never had dis-
cussions with Mr. Farrar regarding his support or
non-support of Mr. Ferreira. In fact, he maintains
that he is not fully aware of what Mr. Ferreira is or
is not involved in with regards to intra-union activi-
ties.
IV. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
A. The Alleged Threat
The complaint alleges that on 7 October Farrar threat-
ened to transfer Minutolo to a different department be-
cause he filed a grievance under the collective-bargain-
ing agreement.
I believe that the evidence supports a fording that
Farrar did threaten to transfer Minutolo because he filed
a grievance.
On 4 October, Minutolo presented a grievance, re-
ceived by Farrar, which accused him of harassing, abus-
ing, persecuting, and discriminating against him. The
next workday , another grievance was presented to
Farrar-this one charging him with cursing him, and
also persecuting , harassing, intimidating, and abusing
him. Thus, on two consecutive workdays , Farrar, a su-
pervisor in that department less than 1 week , was bom-
barded with two grievances making serious allegations of
supervisory misconduct .' ° On receiving the second
grievance, Farrar said, "I've had enough of this shit,"
and immediately called Minutolo into a meeting . His de-
meanor during the meeting was angry-he demanded to
know what the grievance was and also ordered Minutolo
to read it aloud , which he was unable to do . When Min-
utolo insisted that Farrar had previously cursed him,
Farrar angrily threw the grievance down and said he
would see his boss, adding that "you're going to get out
of this department."
It is clear that Farrar was angered and resentful
toward Minutolo for filing the two grievances and chal-
lenging his newly appointed supervisory status in the de-
partment . It is also clear that the threat to have Minutolo
transferred was prompted by the grievance and was
10 That they were grave claims was made clear by the testimony of
Manager Ridolfi who stated that he would not tolerate such conduct by a
supervisor and would take action if the accusations were true.
DRESSER INDUSTRIES
made within the context of and during the grievance ses-
sion.
Farrar admitted telling Minutolo that if he could not
do the job he would recommend that he be transferred.
Respondent asserts that this comment had nothing to do
with the grievance but rather related to Minutolo's poor
performance during Farrar 's 1-week supervision of him.
Although Farrar may not have been happy with Minu-
tolo's work-the grievances indicated that he urged him
to work faster and was unhappy at not being able to
locate certain completed items-nevertheless , I believe
that the threat to transfer Minutolo was made because
Minutolo filed the grievances that accused Farrar of
wrongdoing . Thus, Farrar sought to intimidate Minutolo
into stopping the filing of grievances-he said he had
had "enough of this shit," and he therefore believed that
by threatening to transfer him he would cease his griev-
ance filing.
The Supreme Court in NLRB v. City Disposal Systems,
465 U.S. 822 (1984), noted with approval the Board's
doctrine in Interboro Contractors, 157 NLRB 1295 (1966),
enfd. 388 F.2d 495 (2d Cir. 1967). The Court observed
that in Interboro it was held that an individual 's assertion
of a right grounded in a collective-bargaining agreement
is recognized as concerted activity and accorded the pro-
tection of the Act.
Thus, Minutolo's filing of the grievances was protect-
ed concerted activity. The Board has held that a threat
to impose discipline for filing a grievance violates Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act. Commercial Cartage Co., 273
NLRB 637 (1984); Bohemia, Inc., 266 NLRB 761, 774
(1983).
Inasmuch as I find that Farrar threatened to transfer
Minutolo because he filed a grievance, I conclude that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
B. The Alleged Interrogation
The complaint alleges that on 29 October Ridolfi un-
lawfully interrogated Minutolo regarding the filing of
charges, his union activities and sympathies, and the
union activities of his fellow employees.
In determining whether questioning violates the Act,
the Board asks "whether under all the circumstances the
interrogation reasonably tends to restrain , coerce, or
interfere with rights guaranteed by the Act ." Rossmore
House, 269 NLRB 1176, 1177 (1984).
In evaluating this issue the Board considers "the back-
ground , the nature of information sought, the identity of
the questioner , and the place and method of interroga-
tion." Sunnyvale Medical Clinic, 277 NLRB 1217, 1218
(1985).
In addition, Rossmore House held that the questioning
of open and active union supporters about their union
sentiments , in the absence of threats or promises, does
not necessarily violate the Act.
It could be argued that at the time of the 29 October
interrogation , Minutolo was an "open and active" union
adherent.
The 4 October grievance stated that Minutolo was
persecuted because of his "affiliation with Abel Ferreira
and my support of the candidacy of the Ferreira slate for
elective union office" and the 15 October charge stated
135
that Minutolo was being discriminated against because he
is "known as a supporter of Abe Ferreira against the
Kuba slate."
However, even if it is found that by thus identifying
himself with Ferreira in the grievance and charge, he
could be considered a union adherent , I nevertheless be-
lieve that the questioning by Ridolfi violated the Act.
Thus, the meeting was held in the private office of a
high-ranking management official, to which Minutolo
was summoned . It was the first time they met and the
first time that Minutolo was in his office. Ridolfi went
beyond the questions needed to inquire into the alleged
harassment by asking Minutolo if he speaks with Fer-
reira, if he was questioned by Farrar about union affairs,
and whether he speaks to other employees . Notwith-
standing Minutolo 's apparent open affiliation with the
Ferreira slate as indicated in the charge and grievance,
he gave an evasive answer to Ridolfi by saying that he
does not know what Ferreira was doing with respect to
the Union, and an apparently false answer by saying that
he never spoke to Ferreira regarding his support or non-
support of Ferreira." In addition , only 2 weeks earlier,
Minutolo had been the subject of a threat by a supervisor
that he would be transferred because he filed a griev-
ance . Thus, it cannot be said that this interrogation was
conducted in the absence of threats . Rossmore House.
I accordingly find that the interrogation of Minutolo
reasonably tended to restrain , coerce, or interfere with
Minutolo's Section 7 rights.
The Board in Johnnie 's Poultry, 146 NLRB 770, 774
(1964), stated that:
Despite the inherent danger of coercion therein,
the Board and courts have held that where an em-
ployer has a legitimate cause to inquire , he may ex-
ercise the privilege of interrogating employees on
matters involving their Section 7 rights without in-
curring Section 8(a)(1) liability.
Manager .Ridolfi testified that his main purposes in
meeting with Minutolo on 29 October were to search for
evidence to determine whether there was merit to the
charge filed on 15 October and to prepare a response to
the charge . Although he also stated that another purpose
was to discuss the grievance and resolve whether Minu-
tolo was being threatened , harassed , or intimidated, it is
clear that the subject matter of the grievances that Minu-
tolo was being harassed because of his support for Fer-
reira-was closely related to the charge.
I accordingly find that Ridolfi 's overriding purpose in
questioning Ridolfi was, as stated by him , to prepare a
response to the charge. As such, the rules set forth in
Johnnie's Poultry apply herein.
Johnnie's Poultry requires that, when an employer
has legitimate cause to inquire into matters concern-
ing an employee 's Section 7 rights, such as in pre-
paring the employer's defense in an unfair labor
practice proceeding , the employer must follow spe-
The charge and the grievance cited his support for Ferreira, who
helped write the grievance for Minutolo.
136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cific guidelines in questioning the employee to
avoid incurring 8(a)(1) liability . [Kyle & Stephen,
Inc., 259 NLRB 731, 733 ( 1981).]
The Board in Johnnie 's Poultry stated:
In allowing an employer the privilege of ascer-
taining the necessary facts from employees in these
given circumstances , the Board and courts have es-
tablished specific safeguards designed to minimize
the coercive impact of such employer interrogation.
Thus, the employer must communicate to the em-
ployee the purpose of the questioning , assure him
that no reprisal will take place , and obtain his par-
ticipation on a voluntary basis; the questioning must
occur in a context free from employer hostility to
Union organization and must not be itself coercive
in nature ; and the questions must not exceed the ne-
cessities of the legitimate purpose by prying into
other union matters , eliciting information concern-
ing an employee 's subjective state of mind , or other-
wise interfering with the statutory rights of employ-
ees. When an employer transgresses the boundaries
of these safeguards , he loses the benefits of the
privilege. [146 NLRB at 775.]
As admitted at the hearing, Ridolfi did not tell Minu-
tolo that he did not have to speak with him or that he
would not be disciplined for what he said or did not say.
Thus, it is clear that the Johnnie's Poultry standards have
not been complied with.
Respondent defends the questioning of Minutolo on
the ground that he was told at the start of the session
that it was an "informal session" to determine the truth
of the alleged harassment, no discipline or threats were
involved, and a "one-on-one" meeting was held so that
Minutolo would not feel intimidated . I do not agree. The
Board in Kyle & Stephen, Inc., supra, stated that the
Johnnie's Poultry "safeguards are designed to minimize
the coercive impact of employer interrogation and .. .
are applicable irrespective of the employer 's intent to
coerce, the extent of the questioning."
I accordingly find that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by interrogating Minutolo concerning
the charge he filed with the Board without complying
with the safeguards set forth in Johnnie's Poultry.12
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of the Act.
3. By threatening to transfer employees to a different
department because they filed a grievance under the col-
lective-bargaining agreement ; by interrogating its em-
ployees regarding the filing of charges under the Act,
their union activities and sympathies, and the union ac-
12 See Sherwood-Trimble Medical Building , 247 NLRB 1121, 1133
(1980), in which the Board found a violation, and also found that re-
spondent's supervisor asked an employee "what the charge was about."
Ridolfi used nearly identical language in asking "what 's this charge?"
tivities of their fellow employees, Respondent has violat-
ed Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I find it necessary to order it to
cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. t a
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed14
ORDER
The Respondent, Dresser Industries, Inc., Stratford,
Connecticut, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Threatening to transfer its employees because they
filed a grievance under the collective-bargaining agree-
ment.
(b) Interrogating its employees regarding the filing of
charges under the Act, their union activities and sympa-
thies, and the union activities of their fellow employees.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Post at its Stratford, Connecticut location, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 15 Copies of
the notice, on forms provided by the Officer-in-Charge
for Subregion 39, after being signed by the Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Re-
spondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60
consecutive days in conspicuous places including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Officer-in-Charge in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
' I have rejected the General Counsel 's request for a visitatorial
clause because such a clause is unnecessary in the circumstances of this
case. O. L. Willis Inc., 278 NLRB 203 (1986).
14 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations , the findings, conclusions , and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec 102. 48 of the Rules , be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
15 If 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 Nation-
al 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."
DRESSER INDUSTRIES 137
APPENDIX
NOTICE - TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with transfer
because they filed grievances under the collective-bar-
gaining agreement.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees regarding
the filing of charges under the Act, their union activities
and sympathies , and the union activities of their fellow
employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
DRESSER INDUSTRIES, INC.