Equitable Equipment Co, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 29, 1969

178 N.L.R.B. 302 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Equitable Equipment Co., Inc. and its wholly owned
subsidiary Equitable-Higgins Shipyards , Inc. and
New Orleans Metal Trades Council and Crescent
City Lodge 37, International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO and
General Truckdrivers , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen
and Helpers , Local No. 270, a/w International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Ind. Cases
15-CA-3345 and 15-RC-3888
August 29, 1969
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
THIRD ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND ZAGORIA
On May 13, 1969, Trial Examiner Max
Rosenberg issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices within the meaning of the National Laboi
Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision The Trial Examiner further
found merit in certain objections filed by the Union
to the second election conducted on September 12
1968, in Case 15-RC-3888, and recommended that
the election be set aside Thereafter, the Respondent
and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this
proceeding to a three-member panel
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed The rulings are
hereby affirmed The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, and briefs, and
the entire record the proceeding, and hereby adopts
the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner 2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
The Respondent excepted to the credibility findings made by the Trial
Examiner It is the Board's established practice, however, not to overrule a
Trial Examiner's resolutions with respect to credibility unless, as is not the
case here, the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us
that the resolutions were incorrect Standard Drv Wall Products, Inc , 91
NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3)
in agreeing with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent interfered with
the exercise of the employees' tree choice in the second election held on
September 12, 1968, we have relied only upon the Respondent's unlawful
conduct committed after July 10, 1968, the date of the first election, which
was also set aside Chairman McCulloch would not rely upon Supervisor
Hughes' statement which was directed to other supervisors, but was
overheard by employee Grego, nor would he find this statement violative
of Sec 8(a)(1) of the Act
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner as
modified below, and orders that the Respondent,
Equitable Equipment Co., Inc., and its wholly
owned subsidiary Equitable-Higgins Shipyards, Inc.,
New Orleans, Louisiana, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order
as so modified'
Add the following as paragraph l(k) of the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order.
"(k) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the
exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act "
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the second election held
on September 12, 1968, in Case 15-RC-3888, be,
and it hereby is, set aside, and said case is hereby
remanded to the Regional Director for Region 15 to
conduct a new election
[Direction of Third Election3 omitted from
publication ]
'in order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to
be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all
parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their
addresses which may be used to communicate with them Excelsior
Underwear Inc, 156 NLRB 1236, N L R B v Wvman-Gordon Company,
394 U S 759 Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election eligibility
list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be
tiled by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 15 within 7
days after the date of issuance of the Notice of Third Election by the
Regional Director The Regional Director shall make the list available to
all parties to the election No extension of time to file this list shall be
granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances
Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside
the election whenever proper objections are filed
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OE THE CASE
MAx ROSENBERG, Trial Examiner With all parties
represented, this case was tried before me in New Orleans,
Louisiana, on January 14 and 15, 1969, pursuant to an
amended complaint filed by the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board and an answer thereto by
Respondent, Equitable Equipment Co , inc and its
Wholly Owned Subsidiary Equitable-Higgins Shipyards,
Inc i Joined with the complaint are objections to an
election conducted by the Board among Respondent's
employees on September 12, 1968,2 which were lodged by
the New Orleans Metal Trades Council, herein called the
Council or the Union, and which the Regional Director
for Region 15 consolidated for hearing by order dated
November 29, 1968 At issue is whether Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(l) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, by certain conduct to be detailed
hereinafter In his supplemental decision on objections
which issued on November 26, 1968, the Regional
Director also referred for decision the question of whether
the foregoing alleged acts of misconduct by Respondent
The complaint, which issued on November 29, 1968, is based upon
charges and amended charges which were filed and served on July 17, July
22, and September 11, 1968
'Case 15-RC-3888
178 NLRB No 50
EQUITABLE EQUIPMENT CO, INC
which antedated the September 12 election, as well
another objection to the election filed by the Union, so
interfered with the employees' freedom of choice as to
require the holding a third election ' All parties were
afforded full opportunity to present evidence, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally at the close
of the hearing, and to file briefs Briefs have been received
from the General Counsel and the Respondent, which
have been duly considered
Upon consideration of the entire record, including the
briefs submitted to me, and upon my observation of the
demeanor of each witness while testifying, I hereby make
the following
FINDINGS OI FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
I THL BUSINI SS OE THE EMPLOYER
Respondent, a corporation duly organized under the
laws of the State of Louisiana, maintains its principal
office and place of business in New Orleans, Louisiana,
where it is and has been at all times material herein
engaged in the manufacture of marine products at its New
Orleans and Madisonville, Louisiana, facilities During the
annual period material to this proceeding, Respondent
purchased and received goods valued in excess of $50,000
directly from points located outside the State of
Louisiana, and shipped goods valued in excess of $50,000
from its Louisiana facilities directly to points located
outside that State The complaint alleges, the answer
admits, and I find that Respondent is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act
it THL LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act
III TIIL AL1 I Gf D UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
It is undisputed and I find that, pursuant to a petition
filed on April 25, 1968,' in Case l5-RC-3888 by Crescent
City Lodge 37, International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, an election was held
among Respondent's employees on July 10 General
Truckdrivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers,
Local No 270, IBT, and the Council intervened in that
proceeding and appeared on the ballot The election tally
showed that, of approximately 588 eligible voters, 31 cast
votes for the Machinists, 7 voted for the Teamsters, and
40 cast their ballots for the Union, with 34 ballots under
challenge it was stipulated and I find that, by agreement
of all parties, this election was set aside and a second one
was conducted on September 12. In this election, of
' in addition to urging as objections to the election certain acts of
misconduct by Respondent which find their parallel in the allegations set
forth in the complaint , the Union advanced the following additional
conduct by Respondent in support of its plea that the results of the election
should be overturned Supervisor John Sisson "was seated approximately
twenty-five feet away from the voting line at the New Orleans facility and
during the afternoon session , called out voters ' names as they stood in line,
and made a thumbs -down motion with his hand ," and Sisson was observed
in the voting area talking to two men as they lined up to vote
303
approximately 644 eligible voters, 10 cast their ballots for
the Machinists, 6 voted for the Teamsters, 170 selected
the Union, and 356 voted against the participating labor
organizations. In addition, there were 53 challenged and 3
void ballots Thereafter, on September 19, the Union filed
objections to the second election
In his complaint, the General Counsel alleges that
Respondent, by and through its officers, supervisors, and
agents, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them under
Section 7 of the Act and thereby offended the provisions
of Section 8(a)(1). He further asserts this misconduct
warrants setting aside the election run on September 12
For its part, Respondent denies the commission of any
labor practices proscribed by the Act and urges that the
election results should stand I turn to a consideration of
the alleged misconduct
A The Conduct of Supervisor Frank Thresher
Employee Joseph Griffith testified that, about a week
before the first election which was conducted on July 10,
Supervisor Frank Thresher approached him in
Respondent's warehouse and inquired "who I was going
to vote for." Griffith replied that "the union had done
nothing for me at the time and the company had "
Thresher remarked that "if it wasn't for the unions, that
we wouldn't be making the wages we were now "
Griffith further testified that, following the first
balloting, he informed Thresher that he was assisting the
Union in its organizational campaign Approximately 4
weeks prior to the second election on September 12,
Griffith once more was queried by Thresher as to how the
former intended to vote, and Griffith rejoined that "I
considered that my business. I would vote for who I saw
fit " Griffith added that "I mentioned that I had changed
my mind about the union, and I did not want- likefor the
company to try to brainwash me" Two weeks later the
Union dispatched a letter to Respondent in which it set
forth the names of the employees who constituted the
in-plant organizing committee and Griffith's name was
included among them
Employee Clifton Stone had worked for the
Respondent since 1951 He testified that, a few weeks
before the first election, Thresher approached him in the
pipefitter's shack carrying a piece of paper Thresher
asked Stone what the latter thought about the Union.
When Stone stated that the Union "was all right, had
some good points," Thresher made a note of these
comments on the paper According to Stone, Thresher
then "asked me if I was going to vote for the Union I
told him I didn't know, I hadn't decided at the time. And
he wrote that down and seemed like he asked me if I
would help them, you know, ask the boys in the union not
to vote for the union and what not " Thresher concluded
the conversation by advising Stone that Captain Neville
Levy, Respondent's chief executive officer, "probably
would close down the yard" if the Union succeeded in
weaning the collective support of the employees
It is Stone's further testimony that, a day before the
initial voting, Thresher visited Stone's work station with a
number of Respondent's campaign buttons bearing the
legend "I am True Blue" and requested Stone to wear one
of the buttons and to distribute the rest to the men under
him. Stone retorted, "if I am ordered to I will offer to
give them out to my men but I will not wear one myself."
'Unless otherwise indicated , all dates fall in 1968
304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
About a week after the first election, Stone completed a
job on a Coast Guard vessel and requested another work
assignment from his supervisor, Thresher Thresher
instructed Stone to remove some valves from the bottom
of a barge When Stone, who was a leaderman and
normally worked with assistants, inquired as to who would
assist him in this task, Thresher replied, "I am breaking
you down to a worker you cut my throat before
I am going to cut your throat, you Union Loving Mother
" With this, Thresher placed his hand on his watch
pocket from which a 4-inch knife protruded When
questioned whether Thresher mentioned how Stone had
"cut [Thresher's] throat before," Stone initially responded
with a vague reference to an argument he had with
Thresher many years before concerning the supervision of
some employees Stone then informed Thresher that "I
was going to vote for the union " Upset by what he
believed to be a threat on his life by Thresher's remarks,
Stone visited the office of Hudson Bourgeois,
Respondent ' s assistant vice president and plant
superintendent , shortly thereafter to report the incident In
the presence of Thresher, Stone told Bourgeois that "I am
afraid for my life " Bourgeois proceeded to assuage
Stone's fears, at which juncture Thresher assured Stone
that the former "wasn't going to cut my throat He didn't
mean it that way He was figuring on cutting me down
because I tied up with the Union " During this
conversation Stone related to his superiors that he felt ill
and was going home After returning home he went to the
local office of the National Labor Relations Board to
process his complaint against Thresher and Respondent
When he returned to work the following day, he apprised
Harold Hebert, Respondent's assistant plant
superintendent, of his journey to the Board Hebert told
Stone that "I am not cutting you down Frank Thresher
has not the authority to cut you down I am the one to
cut you down Keep you nose clean and forget about
that "
In his testimony, Thresher steadfastly denied that he
had any conversations with Griffith prior to the initial
election either in the warehouse or elsewhere in which the
Union was mentioned or in which he questioned Griffith
as to how the latter was going to vote According to
Thresher , the subject of unionization did arise during a
colloquy with Griffith approximately a week prior to the
second balloting although he could not recall how this
conversation was initiated. It is Thresher's testimony that
Griffith volunteered the information that "he was
complaining about the union, that they had to, either forty
to sixty dollars coming in, and he was paying a dollar a
day to work , and he got laid off and he went to the hall
and tried to get sent out on a job." Thresher related that
Griffith "wasn't for the union any more on account of
that incident they had when they took his money "
Thresher entered a testimonial denial that he had any
conversations with Stone concerning the Union prior to
the first election He acknowledged, however, that a day
prior to the second election, Stone approached Thresher
and Assistant Plant Superintendent Hebert and , patting
his supervisors on the back , exclaimed "Well, I am
stabbing you in the back tomorrow I am going to cut
your throat , and stab you in the back, I'm no longer with
the company . I got a good offer from the union." When
asked whether he had a discussion with Stone on the day
of the second election regarding the Union, Thresher
initially responded in the negative . After being prompted
by Respondent's counsel, Thresher finally recalled that he
did converse with Stone on that date about a union
construction book, and Stone remarked that "he had to
go with the union because they gave him a good deal
They offered him a master construction book, and he
wasn't going to turn that down, because that-that calls
for $5 80 an hour " Thresher stoutly proclaimed that no
mention was made of Captain Levy closing the yard if the
Union was successful in their discussion and nothing was
said about what would happen if the Union won the
second contest He further denied that he requested Stone
to urge his crew to vote against the Union, and denied he
made notes of this conversation Thresher was then
queried as to whether he had any recollection of a
disagreement with Stone approximately a week following
the first election Thresher allowed as how he had
However, he thereupon pinpointed the episode as having
occurred after the second balloting on September 12 until
counsel jogged his memory by showing him certain notes
which he had made on July 16 to memorialize the incident
and which would, as Stone testified, place the occurrence
about a week following the initial vote According to
Thresher, Stone had asked for another work assignment
that day and the former instructed the latter to pull some
valves from a barge with the assistance of a helper Stone
protested, "What, are you cutting me down"" and
Thresher tartly rejoined in the affirmative Stone inquired
whether this meant that he would lose his status as a
leaderman with a consequent loss of pay and Thresher
replied "No, I'm not cutting your pay I'm in a bind and
I need some help " Stone complained that he was ill and
could not undertake the new assignment and again pressed
Thresher for the reason for "cutting me down " Thresher
stated "Well, Stone, I will give it to you this way,you've
been fooling around enough You've been cutting my throat
and stabbing me in the back You took three weeks to do
a one week job Every time I look for you you are
shooting the bull somewhere." Thereupon, Stone
demanded an audience with Hudson Bourgeois and
Harold Hebert and together they proceeded to Bourgeois'
office When they arrived, Stone reported that Thresher
had threatened his life and that he intended to visit the
Board's office to lodge a complaint against Thresher
Thresher averred that, while he did carry a knife on his
person, he did not overtly threaten Stone with it and,
indeed, assured Stone during this conference that he
meant no harm. Stone then punched out and proceeded to
the offices of the Board Upon his return to work the
following morning, Stone "just laughed it off That's all.
He come [sic] back laughing , and I was laughing."
Initially, Thresher denied that the subject of the Union
arose at any time on July 16 . However, he then admitted
that he made notes of the episodes which occurred that
day, relating that "When he [Stone] told me he was going
to the Labor Board, I wanted to memorize as much as I
possibly could what I said . He was going to the Labor
Board, so I had to know what I said." When questioned
as to whether he knew that if Stone went to the Labor
Board "it would have something to do with the union,"
Thresher brought himself to admit "I imagine they would
have." Finally, Thresher denied that he distributed
Respondent ' s campaign buttons to the employeeswhich bore
the legend " I Am Equity True Blue," but stated " I found
some on my desk, when I went in there , but I didn't pass
them out."
Griffith and Stone impressed me as candid witnesses
who earnestly sought to speak the truth By contrast,
Thresher was an evasive witness who was in frequent need
of testimonial rehabilitation Although Thresher at the
outset of his testimony denied that, in his discussion with
F(U'TABLE EQUIPMENT CO., INC.
Stone on July 16, he "cut back" Stone because of his
union sympathies, he acknowledged that Stone's visit to
the Board on that date "would have" had something to do
with the Union. I credit the testimony of Griffith and
Stone and find that, on or about July 3, and again on or
about August 15, Thresher interrogated Griffith as to
whether the latter intended to vote for the Union. I also
find that, on approximately July I, Thresher interrogated
Stone as to the latter's inclinations toward the Union and
his desires regarding collective representation I further
find that, on July 16, Thresher threatened to demote
Stone from his position as a leaderman because Stone had
sided with the Union Finally, I find that Thresher
threatened Stone on or about July 1 that Captain Levy
would curtail operations at the shipyard in the event the
Union won the election conducted on July 10 By the
foregoing conduct, when taken in conjunction with the
findings hereinafter made, I conclude that Respondent
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
B The Conduct of Supervisor William Hughes, Jr
Samuel Grego was first employed by Respondent in
1967, was laid off in March, and was recalled in April. He
testified that, a few days after he resumed work in April,
his foreman, William Hughes, Jr , approached him and
Hughes "asked me if I was for the union, and I didn't
know at that time that they had any union activities going
on in the yard " However, Grego expressed the opinion
that "it was a pretty good thing." With the
commencement of the Union's campaign among
Respondent's employees, Grego enlisted in its ranks and
he proceeded openly to wear a pencilholder bearing the
Union's insignia on his work clothes He further testified
that, a few weeks before the first election, Hughes
inquired whether Grego "was still for them, and I told
him I would vote the way I wanted to vote." Shortly prior
to the first balloting, Hughes once more asked if Grego
continued to favor the Union and the latter replied that "I
was for the union all the way "
According to Grego, he had occasion to pass his
foremen's shack on July Il, the day following the first
election As he approached within 2 feet of an open
window in the shack, he observed Hughes, as well as
Welding Foreman Robert Spiers and his leaderman, Ken
Isabell, standing inside and he overheard Hughes mention
the "to Greco boys." This reference drew his attention
and, while he paused to listen, he heard Hughes "telling
Bob Spiers and Ken Isabell that he knew who all of the
main union representatives out at the yard; me and Pete
Greco and Bill Green and Larry LaFarge And he was
going to get us." Hughes added, "I will get all them union
mother .
Employee Jack Malone started to work for the
Respondent in May and relinquished his employment with
the Company in January 1969. He testified that, on the
date of his hire, he visited the personnel office where he
was interviewed by Hughes. According to Malone, Hughes
"asked me how I felt toward a union, that they was going
to have an election there, and that they would like to have
people that would stick by the company " Malone replied
that "I would rather not discuss it with him," after which
Malone was offered and accepted employment.
When called to the stand, Hughes recounted that he
was aware that Grego had been laid off and was rehired in
April. Hughes maintained , however, that he did not
305
interview Grego for reemployment but that this chore had
been performed by the latter's leaderman who expressed a
desire to reemploy him. Hughes categorically denied that
he had any conversations with Grego concerning the
Union or Grego's attitude toward collective
representation. He also steadfastly denied that he ever told
Foreman Spiers or Leaderman Isabell that he knew the
identity of the main union supporters, that he named
Grego, Greco, Green, or LaFarge in this connection, or
that he stated that he intended to rid himself of these
active union adherents, although he conceded that he and
his foremen and leadermen frequented the shack in
question where blueprints and timecards were stored.
However, when pressed on this issue, Hughes admitted
that he was aware that these four employees were not only
sympathetic towards the Union but also were the principal
union organizers in his area, noting "we knew that . it
was common knowledge, they wore union badges."
Hughes also acknowledged that he had heard that Grego,
Greco, and Green had served as observers on behalf of the
Union during the first election He frankly admitted that
he preferred not to have a labor organization in the
shipyard and that he "definitely" appreciated the fact that
there were some employees who were loyal to Respondent
during the union campaign. Nevertheless, when queried as
to whether he would rather employ more workers who
exhibited an allegiance to the Respondent, Hughes
exclaimed that "It would be immaterial to me, as long as
I could get my job done "
Hughes further testified that he interviewed Jack
Malone on the date of the latter's hire, but denied that he
ever had occasion to discuss the Union with Malone.
However, he conceded that, during Malone's accession
interview, "I questioned him on where he had worked I
asked him what his trouble was. He just told me he didn't
like it He said he worked on a construction job. I said,
'How the hell, you work up there on a construction job,
you have to belong to a Local ' " Malone responded that
he maintained his job security by paying a "dobie" to the
union '
I credit the testimony of Grego and Malone, not only
because they impressed me as sincere and honest
witnesses, but also because I deem Hughes' testimony to
be implausible.' Hughes concededly knew that Grego,
Greco, Green, and LaFarge were the chief union
adherents inasmuch as they openly wore union buttons
and served the Union at the first election. His displeasure
for union protagonists was made manifest by his
statement that he "definitely" preferred employees who
sided with the Respondent in the organizational drive and
he harbored no discernible compassion for those who
espoused the Union's cause. Moreover, the credible
stature of Grego's and Malone's testimony that they were
interrogated by Hughes concerning their union
propensities is enhanced by the findings, hereinafter made,
that Respondent's Assistant Plant Superintendent Harold
Hebert, who was Hughes' superior, as well as Foremen
Donald Lemons and Chuck McVety, systematically
sought to ascertain the desires and sympathies of the
employees regarding union representation In sum, I find
that, in or about April, June, and July, all before the first
election on July 10, Hughes interrogated Grego
concerning his union sympathies and inquired whether the
latter intended to vote for the Council in the forthcoming
'Respondent's unopposed motion to correct the record by the insertion
of the words "a dobie," apparently on p 233, 1. 22 of the transcript
between the words "paid" and "up," is hereby granted
'Respondent contends that Grego 's testimony should be discredited both
306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
election I further find that, in May, Hughes similarly
interrogated Jack Malone I also find that, in the presence
of Grego on July 11, Hughes threatened to discharge
Grego, Greco, Green, and LaFarge, all known union
activists, because of their efforts on behalf of that labor
organization and, by so doing, created the impression that
he had their union activities under surveillance by
remarking that he knew that they were the major union
organizers I conclude that the Respondent thereby
violated Section 8(a)( I) of the Act.
C The Conduct of Supervisor Bobby Spiers
Hillard Pruett had been employed by Respondent from
1966 until the latter part of 1968 He testified without
contradiction and I find that, about a week prior to the
first election, he encountered Foreman Bobby Spiers in
the shipyard Spiers inquired "what I thought about the
organizing that was going around the yard" and Pruett
"more or less told him I thought it was okay "
Spiers also asked whether Pruett had any dislikes or
gripes Pruett answered that "we needed more money and
also better working conditions " I conclude that, in the
context of this proceeding, Respondent, by Spiers' act of
interrogation of Pruett, violated Section 8(a)(1)
D The Conduct of Supervisor Chuck McVety
LeRoy Abron was employed by Respondent in
February and is still working for the concern His
testimony is uncontroverted and I find that, about a week
prior to the initial balloting, he was accosted by Foreman
Chuck McVety who "asked me how did I feel about the
union. So I told him I didn't have any comments about
that " Upon receiving this answer, McVety commented,
"they just wanted to know how each one felt about the
union "
Alton Fontenot went to work for Respondent in June
and left its employ on December 30 He testified that, on
the date he was hired, he entered the personnel office for
an interview by James Hymel, Sr., Respondent's
personnel clerk Hymel summoned McVety who was to
become Fontenot's foreman. While waiting for McVety's
arrival, Hymel asked Fontenot "how did I feel about the
union He told me to tell him how I felt about the union
I said either way, it didn't make no difference 11
McVety then entered the office and, after studying
Fontenot's application, asked the latter "how did I feel
about the union " Fontenot gave the same response
When Hymel was summoned as a witness, he testified
that he recalled interviewing Fontenot in June but had no
independent recollection of the event Nevertheless, Hymel
insisted that he and McVety conducted separate,
consecutive interviews of Fontenot on that day, and he
was certain that he did not inquire into the latter' s feelings
toward the Union Hymel was equally insistent that
McVety did not pose a similar inquiry to Fontenot
McVety was not called to the stand
I credit Fontenot's testimony and find that, during an
accession interview in June, both McVety and Hymel
because he filed charges under Sec 8(a)(3) alleging that he had been
illegally discriminated against by Respondent which subsequently were
found by the Board to be lacking in merit , and because he failed to inform
the Board investigator of Hughes ' statements to Spiers and Isabell until he
gave a second affidavit to the investigator on October 3 after he left
Respondent ' s employ I am not convinced that these circumstances affect
the otherwise credible quality of his testimony
questioned Fontenot as to his feelings about the Union
Respondent asserts that Hymel was not a supervisor
within the meaning of the Act and therefore it is not
responsible for his utterances As the record fails to
establish that Hymel possessed the requisite indicia to
qualify him as a supervisor under Section 2(11) of the
Statute, I find merit in Respondent's assertion and
conclude he was not a supervisor within the meaning of
the Act However, the General Counsel alternatively
argues that, even though Hymel was not a supervisor,
Respondent was nevertheless accountable for his conduct
because he was "sufficiertly aligned with management in
the eyes of the employees for his conduct to have a
coercive effect and further be attributed to Respondent."
Hymel was classified as a "Personnel Clerk" and worked
in an office where he received applications for
employment, advised applicants if jobs were available,
noted their skills, checked their references, and arranged
for their insurance coverage He also determined in his
interviews whether the applicants had any physical
disabilities When employees were tardy, they would take
their timecard to Hymel who ascertained and made a
notation as to the reasons for the tardiness which could be
a factor in their discharge Moreover, he attended
management safety meetings and occasionally distributed
paychecks. Under the circumstances, I conclude that
Fontenot had reasonable cause to believe that Hymel was
acting for and on behalf of management when he made
his inquiry concerning Fontenot's union sentiments 7
Accordingly, I find and conclude that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(I) when McVety interrogated Abron
and Fontenot, and similarly offended the Statute by
Hymel's questioning of Fontenot.
E The Conduct of Supervisor Donald Lemons
Mark Gemelle was last employed by Respondent from
April to September as a shipfitter, and his foreman was
Donald Lemons Gemelle's testimony is undisputed and I
find that, around the end of May, he was called into
Lemons' office and was told that Lemons had a
questionnaire containing a series of questions which
Respondent wanted Gemelle to answer. Lemons stated
that he would fill in most of the answers because he was
aware of "how [Gemelle] felt, as far as my attitude
toward the company, and so on " Gemelle asked what this
interrogation was all about, and Lemons explained that
"it had to do with the union movement in the yard."
Gemelle commented that he was unaware that any union
campaign was in progress at the shipyard and, as the
questioning continued, Lemons told Gemelle that the
latter was "very, very green; very, very green " Gemelle
inquired into the meaning of this expression, and Lemons
replied "Well, it's a code. It was a questionnaire, he said
that he had to ask all men to sign their opinion as far as
the union was concerned in the yard. That if you were
green, you were for the company, if you were yellow, you
were on the fence, and if you were red, you were for the
union " Lemons then asked Gemelle "How I felt about
the company, what men in the yard he thought I could
influence, and what men in the yard could influence me as
far as there were some questions on ability which he
answered, and filled in my capacilities [sic] and my-my
views on unionism He asked how I felt about unions, and
he -I told him frankly that I believed in unions, but I
didn't think they did any good in shipyards " At this
'See Finesilver Manufacturing Company , 160 NLRB 1400, 1402
EQUITABLE EQUIPMENT CO., INC 307
juncture, Lemons stated that "there is a big union
movement in the yard " When Gemelle expressed his
ignorance as to this activity, Lemons responded, "Well, I
know it's going on I know who the ringleaders are At
that point he mentioned Red Huggins, said he was a
ringleader in the back " Lemons concluded the session
with the remark, "There is more than one way of skinning
a cat We will get even with them "
Based upon the foregoing undenied testimony, I find
and conclude that Respondent coercively interrogated
Gemelle concerning his union desires and sympathies and,
through the use of the questionnaire, created the
impression that it was engaging in the surveillance of its
employees' union activities. I conclude that, by such
conduct, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(I) of the Act
F The Conduct of Supervisor Lloyd Givens
Hillard Pruett testified that, on July 9, the day before
the first election, he encountered Supervisor Lloyd Givens
during his tour of work According to Pruett, Givens
inquired whether Pruett drank beer When the latter
replied in the affirmative, Givens stated, "You stay with
us and you can have all the beer you want to drink after
the election is over " Pruett retorted that he did not care
for Givens' beer and the conversation terminated
Although Respondent sponsored a beer party for its
supervisors that day, Pruett was not invited
In his testimony Givens denied that he had any
conversation with Pruett on July 9, denied that he
mentioned the Union to Pruett on that day, and denied
that he offered Pruett free beer if he voted against the
Union. I do not credit his denials, in light of Pruett's
undisputed testimony that Respondent held a beer party
after the election to which Pruett was not invited
In its brief, Respondent would write off Givens' proffer
of lager as "shipyard raillery " When viewed against the
backdrop of Respondent's entire course of conduct in this
case, I do not so consider it Accordingly, I find that, on
July 9, Given, promised to provide free beer to Pruett if
the latter shunned the Union in the balloting which
occurred the following day By this conduct, I conclude
that Respondent offended the provisions of Section
8(a)(1)
G The Conduct of Supervisor Herbert "Blackie"
Chauffe
Employee Clifton Stone testified that, approximately 2
weeks before the second election which was held on
September 12, he had occasion to speak to Welder
Foreman Blackie Chauffe regarding the well-being of a
welder who had been assigned by Chauffe to work in the
hold of a barge This welder, who possessed but one lung,
had experienced sieges of vomiting and coughing on the
job Because the welder was a union adherent who
prominently displayed a union decal on his person while at
work, Stone accused Chauffe of assigning the man to the
most undesirable and hazardous jobs in the shipyard due
to his union adherence According to Stone, this argument
precipitated a discussion of the Union's organizational
campaign during which Chauffe remarked, "do you know
that Mr Levy [Respondent's president] would close this
yard down if he had the union in here." Chauffe further
remarked that Levy had once owned a brewery which he
had shut down because a labor organization had struck
the enterprise
In his testimony, Chauffe denied that he ever discussed
the physical condition of any welder with Stone, and
denied that he told Stone that Levy would terminate
operations if the Union succeeded in the election
Neither Chauffe's demeanor nor candor on the stand
was impressive. I therefore credit the testimony of Stone
and find that, shortly before the second election, Chauffe
threatened that Respondent would close its shipyard
facilities in the event the employees voted for the Union I
conclude that, by Chauffe's threat, Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1)
H The Conduct of Supervisor John Koepp
Anthony Monistere was employed by Respondent in
1966 and left the Company in September His testimony,
which was taken at a hospital in New Orleans where he
was recuperating from injuries sustained in an automobile
accident, was to the effect that, sometime in August, he
and Clifton Stone had been selected as union
committeemen at a union meeting and this intelligence
was immediately brought to Respondent's attention. In a
conversation a few days later with John Koepp,
Respondent's vice president, which Monistere placed
about 2 weeks prior to the second election on September
12, Koepp commented, "Tony, I understand that you
went to a union meeting last night." Monistere admitted
that he had attended such a gathering. Koepp then
lamented, "You know, I hired you in, I gave you a job,
you learned a trade Then after you turned round and cut
my throat, I can't understand it." Thereupon, Koepp
demanded to know the names of the other employees who
had gone to the union meeting but Monistere replied that
he was not at liberty to divulge this information Koepp
concluded the conversation with the observation that "as
far as he was concerned, that I [Monistere] was finished
with Equitable Equipment Company."
Monistere further testified that, prior to becoming a
union committeeman in August, Koepp met him at work
and reported, "Tony, things got kind of tied up right now.
I can't give you a raise because the union won't let us, but
I'm going to the main office right now and see what I can
do for you "
Koepp admitted that, in August, he had a conversation
with Monistere regarding the Union which Koepp
initiated According to Koepp, he approached Monistere
that day and inquired whether Monistere "was connected
with the Union," and Monistere replied in the affirmative,
adding that "he had accepted a book from the Union "
Koepp then asked "if there was anyone else in the Union
at the Plant connected with the Union," and Monistere
supplied the name of employee Joe Notriano When
questioned as to whether there was any further discussion
about the Union, Koepp initially responded that there was
none. He then changed tack and stated that he told
Monistere that "I did not want him to talk Union on the
yard during working hours but after he left the Yard he
could do as he damn pleased." Koepp denied that he
queried Monistere as to whether the latter had attended
the union meeting or was a committeeman, although he
subsequently admitted that he had learned from certain
unidentified individuals earlier that morning that there had
been such a meeting, that Monistere had been present,
and that Monistere had received a union "book " Koepp
also denied that he informed Monistere that he was
"finished" with Respondent, or that he told Monistere
that he had given the latter a job and taught him a trade
and that Monistere turned around and cut Koepp's throat.
308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Nevertheless , Koepp conceded that he far from relished
the intelligence that Monistere was prounion stating that
"it disturbed me, yes, because I was trying to build this
boy up as a Machinist . He was only a Machinist Helper
at the time." Koepp also conceded that he believed
Monistere displayed a "lack of gratitude" by attending
the union meeting , and accepting the union "book" and
the post of committeeman , explaining " It sort of took me
off guard , he would do something like that , yes." Koepp
added that he had spoken to Norman Bourgeois,
Respondent ' s machinist foreman and a brother of Hudson
Bourgeois , Respondent 's assistant vice president and plant
superintendent , about Monistere ' s union activities and this
information "disturbed" Norman Bourgeois as well.
Finally, Koepp related that he had received a letter from
the Union about 3 days after his conversation with
Monistere in which the names of the committeemen,
including Monistere ' s, appeared , and that he conveyed this
knowledge to Norman Bourgeois immediately upon the
receipt of the letter.
Koepp also acknowledged that he spoke with Monistere
about a wage increase before the second election.
According to Koepp, Monistere inquired when the former
could obtain the raise and Koepp replied that "we could
not give him any increase until we found out the decision
on the election ," an apparent reference to the fact that the
Board had under consideration the decision as to whether
to schedule and when to conduct a second election.
However, Koepp denied that he told Monistere that he
would proceed to the main office and see if he could
obtain a raise, and denied that he informed Monistere that
the Union had tied his hands.
Douglas Peters, Respondent superintendent of
production, was present during the discussion between
Koepp and Monistere concerning the Union . Peters
testified that, early that morning, it became general
knowledge that Monistere and Notriano had accepted "a
book with the Union." Whereupon, he sought out Koepp
and related that "I understand from a rumor on the Yard
that Tony Monistere and Joe Notriano accepted to
represent the Union here in this Yard , in the upcoming
election ." Peters and Koepp then began making the
rounds of the shipyard and they stopped at Monistere's
work station. Koepp approached Monistere and stated,
"Tony, I understand you are going to represent the Union
in the Yard over here ." Monistere replied , "Yes, I have
accepted a book." Koepp inquired , "Tony, is there
anybody else in the Yard here who has accepted a book or
has decided to represent the Union?" at which juncture
Monistere uttered the name of Joseph Notriano. While
Peters denied hearing Koepp tell Monistere that the latter
was "finished" with the Company or that he had cut
Koepp ' s throat , Peters candidly admitted that Koepp told
Monistere "Tony, I think you are making a big mistake."
Rounding out Peters ' testimony on this issue, he averred
that he and the Company received letters from the Union
containing the names of the committeemen chosen by its
members.
I credit Monistere 's testimony , not only because of the
forthright manner in which it was given, but also because
I deem any contrary testimonial utterances by Koepp and
Peters both improbable and implausible . Thus, Koepp and
Peters admitted that, during the conversation with
Monistere in August , Koepp asked him whether he was
"connected" with the Union and whether he had accepted
a "book" to represent the Union at the shipyard in the
forthcoming election. Inasmuch as Monistere received his
portfolio as a committeeman at the union meeting, I find
it implausible that Koepp would not have questioned
Monistere as to whether he attended the meeting.
Moreover , Koepp admittedly inquired of Monistere
whether "there was anyone else in the Union at the Plant
connected with the Union" and whether "there was
anybody else in the Yard here who has accepted a book or
has decided to represent the Union ." Once again, I
consider the denials of Koepp and Peters that they
inquired into who attended the union meeting inherently
implausible in view of the very content of their own
testimony . Furthermore , while Koepp denied that he told
Monistere that the latter was "finished " with Respondent,
he admitted that he deemed Mon istere an ingrate for
siding with the Union after Koepp had attempted to better
Monistere 's lot, and that Monistere ' s union propensities
"disturbed" him. In addition , Peters acknowledged that
Koepp informed Monistere that he was "making a big
mistake" by carrying the Union 's banner.
In short, I find that, late in August, while in a
conversation with Monistere , Koepp interrogated
Monistere concerning his union activities and the activities
of his fellow employees in the manner set forth in
Monistere's testimony . I also find that, during this
discussion , Koepp threatened Monistere with undefined
reprisals because he espoused the Union ' s cause. By so
doing, I conclude that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1).
I further find that, in early August , Koepp informed
Monistere that Respondent was unable to grant him a
wage increase because the "Union won ' t let us," and
promised to proceed to the "main office right now and see
what I can do for you ." While it is true, as hereinafter
chronicled , that Peters had promised Monistere a pay
increase prior to the advent of the Union and that Peters
told Monistere after the first election that Respondent was
unable to award the increase because the Union had its
"hands tied" by virtue of certain objections to the first
election and the scheduling of the second , and while I
have found , as reported elsewhere , that Peters' comments
in this regard were legally permissible , I am not persuaded
that Koepp's fall in the same mold. At the time of his
conversation concerning wages with Monistere, Koepp
knew that the Board had under consideration the
scheduling of a second election which was held on
September 12. Moreover , at the same time, Monistere had
demonstrated no overt interest in unionization. Under
these circumstances , I find it reasonable to conclude that
Koepp sought to wean the allegiance and support of
Monistere by proffering economic benefits in spite of the
fact that the Union's representational efforts might have
forestalled their legitimate award . Accordingly, I conclude
that by Koepp's offer of a wage increase to Monistere,
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1).
1. The Conduct of Supervisor Norman Bourgeois
Anthony Monistere testified that , on August 30,
approximately a week after his conversation with Koepp
regarding Monistere ' s union activities , he discoursed with
Norman Bourgeois , Respondent ' s machinist foreman.
While hanging a rudder on , a tugboat , Bourgeois boarded
the vessel and "wanted to know how come I got in there,
if I was high pressured to sign up for committeeman, and
all." Monistere replied that he had not been forced into
assuming this position but did so voluntarily. Bourgeois
inquired if Monistere "wanted to get out, that he could fix
it where , you know, where John Koepp and all of them
would forgive me for what I have done , you know, and
EQUITABLE EQUIPMENT CO., INC. 309
that he would make it possible for me to be back in good
standing with the company. But as far as he knew, at the
time, I was in bad standing with the company." Monistere
rejoined that if Bourgeois "wanted me to get out so badly
and if Mr. Koepp wanted me to get out so badly, if he
would go up there and tell Mr. Koepp to give me, to write
me a written guarantee that I would never be laid off or
fired I would withdraw."
Norman Bourgeois, who was Monistere's immediate
supervisor, recalled a discussion on that day with
Monistere. According to Bourgeois' version, he boarded
the tug and approached Monistere and an employee
named James Wager, who were in conversation. Bourgeois
overheard Wager tell Monistere that the latter was
"making a mistake. Won't you come over to the
Company?" Monistere replied, "Well, I can't. I am too
deep in it." Turning to Bourgeois, Wager asked the
former, "Don't you think he's making a mistake," and
Bourgeois answered, "Well, I don't know." Monistere
spoke up and said that "I know I am getting fired. I can't
very well back out. If the Company will give me a written
statement that I won't be laid off . . . I will come over."
Bourgeois stated that no company could give such an
assurance, but promised that Monistere would continue to
be employed as long as any other personnel. During his
examination, Bourgeois denied that he questioned
Monistere whether the latter had been pressured into the
Union, denied that he promised to obtain Koepp's
forgiveness if Monistere defected from the Union's ranks,
and denied that he told Monistere that he was "in really
bad relationship with the Company."
I do not credit Norman Bourgeois ' denials, for I believe
they were contrived. Thus, Monistere testified that, in his
conversation with Bourgeois, the supervisor desired to
know why he joined the Union and whether he had been
coerced into becoming a committeeman. During his
examination, Bourgeois adamantly insisted that he never
learned that Monistere had been selected as a
committeeman, either by way of overheard rumor or from
the mouths of Koepp, Peters, or any other official of
Respondent. He also steadfastly proclaimed that he never
discussed the Union's organizational campaign or the
identity of union adherents with Koepp or any other
officer of Respondent, with the exception of his brother,
Hudson Bourgeois . Yet, Koepp emphatically declared on
the stand that he received a union letter designating
Monistere as a committeeman 4 days before Bourgeois'
conversation with Monistere which Koepp immediately
turned over to Bourgeois' attention. In addition, Koepp
testimonially recounted that, after his conversation with
Monistere in which the former learned of Monistere's
extensive involvement in union affairs, he revealed this
intelligence to Bourgeois who became "disturbed" by the
knowledge.
I credit Monistere's testimony and find that, on August
30, Respondent's Machinists Foreman Norman Bourgeois
questioned Monistere as to why he had joined the Union
and whether he had been coerced into becoming a union
committeeman, and promised that he would use his good
offices to restore Monistere to good standing with
Respondent's officialdom if he abandoned the Union. I
conclude that, in the context of this case, the interrogation
and the proffer was coercive within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) and violative of that Section.
the first election, Douglas Peters, Respondent's
superintendent of production, recommended to
management that Monistere receive an hourly wage
increase of 14 cents and Monistere was so informed.'
However, Monistere failed to receive the raise. About a
week following that election Peters came to Monistere and
explained "the union got things tied up right now but as
soon as the union lets us, I'm going to compensate you 10
cents for your waiting period," meaning that "that would
be a total of 24 cents raise as soon as the union would let
him." In this connection, Peters informed Monistere that
the Union had filed objections to the election and that
"we wouldn't be able to do it, give any raises until our
election is set aside and we have a second election or they
say the first election is all right."
Peters' testimony on this score is not at substantial
variance with Monistere's. Peters related that, several
weeks before the first election, he recommended a wage
increase for Monistere which did not go through.
However, 2 days after the election, he approved a raise of
14 cents per hour for Monistere and personally notified
the latter of this personnel action. According to Peters,
"Before it [the increase] could be completely implemented
it was stopped by the Main Office after it left my office.
They were apparently notified about the Labor Board,
that they had charges filed against us by the Union
involving the first election, concerning the first election
and that all wages would be frozen until, pending the
outcome of either the first election, it was either set aside,
accepted or a new election was held." Peters conveyed this
information to Monistere, stating "the raise that I had
approved for you has been stopped again. The Union in
the last election had filed a protest against us on unfair
labor practices in the last election. And, there is a
possibility there will be another election or this one will be
set aside or there will be another election. Now all wages
have been frozen, not just for you but for everybody by
the Main Office until this thing is resolved out either by
another election or this one is accepted." Peters continued
that "the Main Office had decided we wouldn't give any
increases pending an election because of the possibility of
intimidating the employees to vote for the Company."
Monistere remarked, "I understand," and the subject was
dropped. Concluding Peters' testimony, he denied that he
offered Monistere a bonus of 10 cents per hour for
waiting for his wage increase, a testimonial conflict which
is not critical to a resclution of the ultimate issue in light
of the allegations in the complaint.
In his pleadings, the General Counsel alleged that
Respondent, by Supervisor Peters, "orally informed an
employee [Monistere] he could not have a wage increase
because of the Union." As Monistere himself
acknowledged on the stand, Peters meant by this
statement that Respondent was legally foreclosed from
awarding economic benefits pending a Board decision on
the Union's objections to the election because, as Peters
put it, the award might be viewed as "intimidating the
employees to vote for the Company." As the Board
observed in a case not dissimilar from the instant one,
"We are unable to conclude that the Employer, by its
announcement ... sought to shift to the Petitioner [union]
'When the petition in Case i5-RC- 3888 was initially filed by the Union,
the requested unit did not encompass the employees at the Madisonville
J. The Conduct of Supervisor Douglas Peters installation where Monistere was employed At some undisclosed date
prior to the balloting and prior to Peters' recommendation , the unit was
Anthony Monistere testified that, some months prior tc enlarged by the Board to include those employees
310 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the onus for the postponement of adjustments in wages
and benefits for employees it sought to represent, or to
disparage and undermine the Petitioner by creating the
impression that it stood in the way of their getting
planned wage increases and benefits"' Moreover, had
Respondent paid the wage increase to Monistere, it might
very well have been brought before the Board on charges
of interference with employees' statutory rights by
affording economic benefits to them while a question
concerning representation was pending '° Accordingly, I
conclude that the General Counsel has failed to make out
a case on this issue I shall therefore dismiss this
allegation from the complaint
K The Conduct of Supervisor Hudson Bourgeois
Employee Bill Green did not appear at the hearing
However, the parties stipulated that, if called to the stand,
he would have testified as follows
Approximately three weeks before I attended the
hearing in the election case, I was called into the office
of Hudson Bourgeois [Respondent's assistant vice
president and plant superintendent) and Harold Hebert,
and been asked, "Are you helping organize the yard " I
told him, "No, sir " He said, "We have a letter here
from Mr Hornsby which says that you and Larry
LaFarge are trying to organize the yard " I said, "No,
sir " Bourgeois said, "Well, we have been told you are
trying to organize the yard " I told him that when I
came there I came there, I came off construction work,
that I was a union man, that they knew it when I hired
in Bourgeois said they did not think I was the type of
man to try to come there and organize the union And
I told him I carried two membership books in my
pocket already This was about all that was said
Clifton Stone testified that, a few days before the first
election, he was summoned to Bourgeois' office When he
arrived, Bourgeois inquired "who got to me," and Stone
replied that no one had Bourgeois then said, "why are
you giving up these many years here with me and this
organization that is going to go forward for a losing
battle, a losing thing, like the Union " Stone stated that
he did not believe the Union's cause was lost, and that he
hoped to gain more attractive benefits by collective
representation Bourgeois ridiculed Stone's observations
and asked whether the latter had received his union
"book," to which Stone replied that he had not and
probably would never get one Bourgeois then stated to
Stone that "if you are so set on a Union job why not quit
and go to a Union fob " Stone retorted that he "was
going to stay there until the Union told me to leave or
that he should fire me " Bourgeois observed that the
Company had grown over the years and commented that
Stone "would grow with the company providing you
wouldn't take sides with the Union " Bourgeois amplified
this comment by stating that "Frank Thresher would
eventually would be stepped up to Superintendent which
he was Foreman at the time and since I had been there
longer than anyone else I would be scheduled for his job
as General Foreman of the Yard "
Stone further testified that, a week or two before the
second election, he engaged in another conversation with
Hudson Bourgeois. On this occasion, Stone entered the
bathroom to relieve himself and, when he arrived, he
noticed the presence of Bourgeois who was reading
'See UARCO Incorporated , 169 NLRB No 162
"See Performance Measurements Co, Inc. 148 NLRB 1657, 1658
pro-Respondent election posters which were affixed to a
bulletin board Observing Stone, Bourgeois asked what the
former was doing in the room and Stone explained that he
was simply answering the call of nature Bourgeois shot
back, "this wasn't no place for union organizers to hang
out " Stone repeated that he had come to relieve himself
and angrily remarked that if Bourgeois did not believe
him Stone would display the end product At this
juncture, Bourgeois warned, "you think you are in the
driver's seat now but when this union stuff is over with I
will be in the driver's seat and that 40 foot gate will hit all
you Union Loving Mother in the " According to
Stone, this was his first visit to the restroom on that day
and he did not discuss the Union with any other
employees during this visit
Surprisingly, Bourgeois corroborated Green's stipulated
testimony in its essential details Hence, Bourgeois
admitted that he had a conversation with Green in April
concerning the Union. On this occasion, he summoned
Green to his office and, in the presence of Assistant Plant
Superintendent Hebert, Bourgeois "told Mr Green that
we had rumors that he and other men in the Yard were
circulating Union Cards for the people to sign, different
people in the Yard, in order to try and get a Union
Election " Green denied that he had solicited any
employees on behalf of the Union, explaining that he was
not interested in this type of labor organization because he
had previously been a construction worker and held
membership in construction unions While Bourgeois
initially related that he learned of Green's efforts on
behalf of the Union from Hebert, who in turn gained this
knowledge from Stone, Bourgeois subsequently conceded
that he told Green that he had received a letter from a
Mr Hornsby notifying him that Green had been
circulating union authorization cards in the shipyard
I credit the proffered testimony of Green, which is not
basically disputed, and find that, in April, Hudson
Bourgeois called Green into the former's office and
interrogated him as to whether he had been soliciting
membership among Respondent's employees on behalf of
the Union I conclude that this conduct falls within the
proscriptive ambit of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
Bourgeois also acknowledged that he had a discussion
concerning the Union with Stone on the day before the
first election His version of this incident is that, on July
9, Stone voluntarily visited his office and stated, "Buddy,
I want to let you know that I'm on the other side of the
fence. I am not going for the company in the Election "
Bourgeois asked, "well, Stone, what did we do to you'i"
Stone replied, "Well, you didn't do me anything I have
analyzed both sides of the story. I told you once before I
am a man without any education whatsoever, and I am a
poor boy, I have been working in the shipyards, I got to
took out for Stone first I got a wife and a couple of
kids " Bourgeois pointed out to Stone that the latter had
been employed in the shipyards for years and knew what
the going rate of pay was, and then remarked, "Well,
Stone, my recommendation to you if you feel this way, is
this You either should change your daily budget way of
living or seek employment in a different field." In his
testimony, Bourgeois denied that any mention was made
of a "Union book," denied that he told Stone to seek
employment elsewhere if he was so set "on a Union job,"
and denied that he informed Stone that the Company was
a growing concern and that Stone would grow with it and
receive a promotion if he abandoned the Union
Bourgeois also recalled a conversation with Stone in the
men's room about 3 weeks before the second election It is
EQUITABLE EQUIPMENT CO.,
his testimony that he was present in the restroom at the
time when Stone and an unidentified employee entered.
Although Stone and his cohort were engaged in a dialogue
as they entered, Bourgeois admitted that he did not
overhear what was spoken Nevertheless, Bourgeois was
prompted to call out "Stone, this Restroom is not a
hangout Do you have to do something here, do what you
have to do and let's get back to the job" Stone replied
that he had come in response to nature's call and
volunteered to prove this to Bourgeois Bourgeois retorted,
"Stone, I have no objections, you have the same rights
here as anybody, all I asked you to do is not to loaf here
in the Restroom, that is all that I have asked of you "
When questioned as to whether he observed Stone going
into this edifice earlier that day, Bourgeois replied in the
affirmative, stating "Several times, I did not count the
times " Concluding Bourgeois' testimony, he denied that
he referred to the Union during this conversation
I have heretofore found that Stone was a truthful
witness whose testimony was worthy of belief and I
perceive no reason for departing from this appraisal in
assessing the quality of his testimonial utterances where
they collide with Bourgeois' I deem it implausible that
Bourgeois' sole concern when he met Stone in the men's
room before the second election evolved around the
latter's frequent use of that facility on that day, and that
Bourgeois did not broach the subject of the Union or the
election on this occasion At the time of this conversation,
Bourgeois was fully apprised of Stone's increasing
affection for the Union Thus, I have heretofore found
that, on the day before the initial election, Stone refused
to wear a company electioneering button bearing the
legend "I am True Blue," and reluctantly distributed
those buttons to his crew on Thresher's orders. I have also
found that, after an altercation between Stone and
Thresher about a week following this balloting, both men
proceeded to Bourgeois' office where Thresher announced
that he "was figuring on cutting [Stone] down because I
tied up with the Union " Moreover, I have found that
Respondent received a letter from the Union in August
setting forth the names of the committeemen, and Stone
held such a post In sum, I find it improbable that
Bourgeois would have been irritated by Stone's allegedly
frequent trips to the restroom on the day in question, a
dereliction never previously charged against this senior
employee so far as this record stands
Based on Stone's credited testimony, I find that, prior
to the first election, Bourgeois questioned Stone as to his
reasons for making common cause with the Union and
suggested that Stone should seek employment elsewhere if
he desired collective representation. I further find that,
during this episode, Bourgeois promised to promote Stone
to a supervisory position at some future date if he
abandoned his interest in and support of the Union
Moreover, I find that, before the second election,
Bourgeois threatened Stone that when the balloting was
concluded he and his fellow union adherents would be
severed from Respondent's employment rolls I conclude
that, by Bourgeois' statements, Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
L. The Conduct of Supervisor Sonny Alley
The testimony of Cecil Kersh is uncontroverted and I
find that, approximately 4 weeks prior to the first
election, he engaged in a conversation with his supervisor,
Sonny Alley During their colloquy, Alley asked Kersh for
his "honest opinion about the union " Kersh, who was
wearing a union button on his apparel, replied that he
favored the Union because of the benefits which it offered
Alley informed Kersh that the former was a dues-paying
member of the Machinists Union and remarked that he
could not fathom how a union could benefit shipyard
workers. Alley added, "If the unions did come in, that he
would most likely have to lay two or three people off, and
that we would more or less work on a day to day basis,
rather than steady." Alley also stated that, under a union
contract, layoffs would be dictated
About 2 weeks before the election, he had another
conversation with Alley. When Kersh was first employed,
he was told he would subsequently receive the top pay for
his craft. Not having received it, he sought out Alley and
requested the increase. Alley replied that "the law
prevented them from giving a raise during a union
campaign "
Clyde Ray Malone's testimony is undenied that, about
6 to 8 days prior to the first election, Malone complained
to Alley that, when he was hired, he too had been
promised a wage increase in 2 to 3 months and that he
had not been awarded it Alley remarked, "Do you know
this union could hold this up or actually stop you from
even drawing this money9 Although I held a card with the
union, I feel personally that the yard will be closed down
before he will ever sign a contract."
On the basis of the foregoing undisputed testimony, I
find that Alley questioned Kersh about his desires for
representation by the Union, and warned that the
employees ran the risk of a reduction in force if the Union
was successful because, under a negotiated agreement,
layoffs would be necessary I conclude that these
statements, when considered in the context of
Respondent's other unlawful conduct portrayed herein,
violated Section 8(a)(1) However, I am not convinced
that Alley's comment to Kersh that "the law prevented
them from giving a raise during a union campaign" was
offensive of the statute. As in the case of the statement of
Superintendent of Production Douglas Peters regarding
the award of wage increases, Alley was simply stating a
truism for, had Respondent awarded pay raises shortly
before the election, this conduct could very well have
found its way in the complaint issued in this proceeding.
Accordingly, I shall dismiss the complaint insofar as it
alleges that Respondent violated the Act by the foregoing
statement of Alley.
I also find that, in early July, Alley informed Malone
that Respondent would close its shipyard before it would
ever sign a contract with the Union. In my view, this
threat of closure impinged upon Malone's freedom of
choice in the impending election and was violative of
Section 8(a)(1).
M The Conduct of Supervisor Harold Hebert
Clifton Stone testified that, approximately a month
before the first election, Assistant Plant Superintendent
Harold Hebert approached Stone in the pipefitters shack
with a form in his hand. Hebert asked Stone "what I
think of the Union and what way probably I would vote,
did I like the union." Hebert further inquired into the
names of Stone's friends with whom he ate dinner and
rode to work Hebert made a note of Stone's responses on
the form which he carried. Hebert then wrote down a
series of questions on about 40 to 50 pieces of paper
which he gave to Stone with the suggestion that "I go and
question the men how were they going to vote." Stone
told Hebert that he was still on the fence as to his voting
312 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
choice, but he agreed to interrogate his crew with the
questions which Hebert had given him Hebert instructed
Stone to observe the eyes of the employees whom he
questioned because "if they looked down to the ground
they usually looking off and don't want to talk about it
and they probably would be uncertain or they were
against us. If they just come out direct and looked you
right in the eye and said, no, I ain't going to vote for the
union more than likely that man of that type was not
going to vote And that if they were hemming and hawing
around, trying to get off the subject more than likely he
said he would go for the union " At the conclusion of
their conversation, Hebert related that "if the union got in
here more than likely we wouldn't get no raise Definitely
the company had said too that the union didn't have all
the say-so" and that Respondent would reduce its hourly
pay scale to the level paid by another company in the
area
Stone further testified that he attended his first union
meeting about a week or two before the first election The
following day, Hebert accosted him and remarked "I gave
you all morning to come and tell me but, that you went to
the union meeting and to tell me who was there, and he
said, you hadn't done so." Stone replied that he had
previously heard the Respondent's side of the electoral
argument and that he attended the meeting to hear the
Union's. Hebert asked, "you going to change," and Stone
responded, "I think I am." Thereupon, Hebert inquired
into the names of the employees who had attended the
union gathering but Stone refused to divulge this
information.
According to Stone, about a day or two before the first
election, Hebert escorted Stone and some other employees
over to a billboard which contained samples of the ballots
to be utilized in the forthcoming election Pointing his
finger at the box designated "None," Hebert warned that
"this is where you must vote if you want to hold your
job." Stone jokingly placed his finger in the box
designating a vote for the Union, whereupon Hebert
exclaimed "I will kick you in the " Shortly
thereafter, Hebert came to Stone and instructed the latter
Co visit the men in his crew with a sample ballot and stress
the fact that "if they wanted to hold their jobs to vote in
the box which read, `None.' "
On the day before the first election, as reported
elsewhere, Stone's immediate supervisor, Frank Thresher,
directed Stone to wear a company campaign button and
to distribute similar buttons to the employees in his gang.
Stone refused to pin one on his apparel. About an hour
later he met Hebert who was wearing the button and
Hebert asked why Stone did not bear one as well. Hebert
cautioned, "You'd better wear one and be True Blue to
the Company." Stone protested that he preferred to side
with the Union, to which Hebert replied, "If I [Stone]
knew what was good for me that I had better wear the
button."
Stone also testified that, approximately 2 to 3 weeks
prior to the second election, Hebert questioned him as to
whether he had changed his mind about voting for the
Union. When Stone replied in the negative, Hebert
remarked "if you Union Lovers would hurry up and get
this thing over with the company was going to give us 22
to a 25 cents raise and if we voted the union in there, we
probably wouldn't get nothing but $3.37" which was less
than the going rate. About a week before the second
balloting, Hebert again spoke to Stone. In this
conversation, Hebert stated that he "hated to see me get
messed up and so forth with this union that there was so
much corruption and all in it, I was being misled and if I
would realize, if I realized, if we voted the union in there
Mr. Levy would close down the yard." Hebert then
directed Stone to "instruct the men to that effect."
The final conversation relating to the Union took place
about a week after the election. It is Stone's testimony
that, on this occasion, Hebert approached and stated with
laughter in his voice that "he didn't hold no hard feelings
and all but said he was intending to step me up into
Foreman, which would be Frank Thresher's job Frank
Thresher was going to be stepped up to Superintendent if
I hadn't took sides with the Union I told him I had bit
off a chew of tobacco I guess I would have to chew it "
Hillard Pruett testified that, the day before the first
election, Hebert told him "I heard you was for the
union " After Pruett confirmed his allegiance to that labor
organization, Hebert warned, "You'd better stay with us "
In his testimony, Cecil Kersh related that, about 2
weeks before the first election, Kersh asked Hebert for a
wage increase. Hebert replied that Respondent could not
grant any raises due to lack of work. During this
conversation, Hebert stated that "he didn't see how the
unions could benefit us more than what we were already
getting. And said Captain Levy didn't have to submit to a
contract even if the unions came in, that rather he asked
how would I feel if I come to work after a strike, if the
unions came in, and Captain Levy didn't submit to a
contract, then the next alternative would be to strike, how
would I feel if I came back to work and someone else had
my job. That was perfectly legal, that the man could hire
men to do the work while the other employees were out
on strike And he also made the statement that Captain
Levy would rather close the yard than submit to a
contract."
Respondent summoned Hebert to the stand to meet the
testimony of Stone, Pruett, and Kersh He admitted that,
in late June, Kersh asked about the possibility of
obtaining a wage increase and Hebert stated that such an
award was out of the question at that time because it
might subject Respondent to unfair labor practice charges?'
Kersh then posed the query, "How do I stand?" to
which Hebert answered, "Cecil, you stand just like you
always have You've got a job here, I have no ill feelings.
You have exposed yourself. I take that as your feelings.
You believe in what you want " When Kersh inquired
whether the yard would be closed because of the Union,
Hebert stated "Cecil, this I can't determine. Only way
anything like this could happen would be if the unions did
win the election, and the demands were such as Captain
Levy could not meet the demands. Then the union did pull
a strike, and we could not operate. Then we would have to
close." He then added, "I didn't think this would
happen."
Hebert also admitted to a conversation with Pruett a
few weeks before the first election. On this occasion,
Pruett was looking at a campaign poster on a billboard in
the shipyard which contained pictures of two grocery
baskets, one empty and one full. When Pruett inquired,
"How do you like that?", Hebert retorted, "it could
happen." Apart from this discussion, Hebert insisted that
he had no other discussions with Pruett regarding the
"Whether Hebert declined to award a pay raise to Kersh because of the
fear of triggering the filing of unfair labor practice charges, as he testified,
or because of lack of work , as Kersh averred, this would not, in my
opinion, have been violative of the statute under the circumstances here
presented . Insofar as any allegation in the complaint is susceptible of an
interpretation that this conduct was unlawful, it shall be dismissed
EQUITABLE EQUIPMENT CO., INC 313
Union While he steadfastly denied that he ever
questioned Pruett as to whether the latter favored the
Union or ever cautioned him to "stick with us," Hebert
conceded that he knew that Pruett was in league with the
Union because "he led me to believe in his actions the
way he hedged about by the posters and all "
Regarding the testimony of Stone, Hebert categorically
denied every essential portion of that testimony I do not
credit these denials, nor do I credit the denials where his
testimonial utterances collide with those of Kersh and
Pruett, for I believe that his testimony was contrived as
evidenced by the following happenstance On
cross-examination by the General Counsel, Hebert was
queried as to whether he had ever given Stone examples of
questions on little pieces of paper which Stone was to
utilize in order to determine whether the employees were
for or against the Union He flatly responded, "No, sir."
Hebert then adamantly denied that he had ever jotted
down on paper some form questions that might be put to
employees to determine if they were prounion When
asked again whether he had given Stone pieces of paper
with questions to be asked of employees, he replied, "No,
sir, not that I can remember " At this juncture, counsel
presented two handwritten notes to Hebert, one of which
bore the names of employees S Allen and Cisco, and the
other contained the name of L C. Everett The first note
read "For union or against What would do if union was
elected and was pulled out on strike with 10 depend to
feed. Does he feel satisfied with benefits Co gives. Steady
employment Top pay" The second note bore the words
"New man with Co. Has steady fob-can union give him
any more benefits than the Co gives Is he for against
union " Hebert grudgingly acknowledged that he had
previously seen these notes When interrogated as to
where he had seen them, Hebert proclaimed that he had
received the notes from Stone before the first election and
that Stone commented in turning them over, "He was
giving-he gave me these two He spoke to them like, he
spoke to the other boys like for instance Larry LaFarge
and Bill Green He told me about them " Hebert stoutly
claimed that he did not know from what source Stone
obtained the documents When pressed on the matter,
Hebert ultimately confessed that the notes were in his,
Hebert's, handwriting The following colloquy then ensued
between counsel and Hebert
Q When were these written?
A This was written when Stone was giving me the
information, sir
Q. Why did you write questions when he was giving
you information9
A. Well, just the way he gave them to me, I wrote
the question down, that was it
Q Did you write the answers down?
A. Just kept them in my mind, sir?
Q But you wrote the questions?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you admit both these notes are your
handwriting, is that correct?
A Yes, sir
Q. You were going to go question these people and
ask how they were going to vote?
A That I was going to ask them9
Q. Stone was9
A. Not that I can recall, sir.
Q. Do you deny that you gave Stone 25 or more
notes with employees' names on them to question about
the Union9
A No, sir, no, sir.
Q You don't deny that, or you do deny it)
A I do not deny it.
Q What did you give Stone9
A. A little booklet, yes.
Q Tell us more about the little booklet.
A It was just with the man's name, simplyreasons --
I was curious of the people, not for a record of
anything , or discriminating against the person or
anything.
Q But what was Stone supposed to put into the
booklets, how employees felt about the Union9
A No, sir, just jotted down whatever the man would
tell him I mean if he felt that whatever the man, you
know, explained himself, say, "Well, what gripes have
you got against the company," or anything-
1 credit the testimony of Stone, Pruett, and Kersh. I
find that, on the dates set forth in Stone's testimony,
Hebert interrogated the former as to his union sympathies
and desires, instructed Stone to interrogate other
employees concerning their voting preference in the
upcoming election; warned Stone that if the Union were
successful Respondent would not only refuse to grant a
wage increase but would instead reduce the employees'
wage scale, solicited from Stone the names of employees
who had attended a union meeting; directed Stone to vote
against the Union on pain of losing his job, ordered Stone
to inform his fellow employees that they must reject the
Union in the forthcoming balloting if they wished to
retain their employment with Respondent , threatened
Stone with unspecified reprisals if he failed to wear
Respondent ' s campaign buttons, promised Stone and his
cohorts wage increases after the election if the Union were
defeated, threatened Stone that Respondent would
terminate its operations if the men voted for the Union
and directed him to convey this information to his fellow
employees; and told Stone that he had forfeited a
promotion to foreman because he sided with the Union
I further find that, on July 9, Hebert questioned Pruett
concerning the latter ' s union sympathies and created the
impression of the surveillance of Pruett ' s union activities
by stating that he heard that Pruett favored the Union,
and warned Pruett to forsake the Union in the balloting
Finally, I find that, around the end of June, Hebert
warned Kersh that Respondent would shut down its
shipyard rather than submit to a contract with the Union.
By the foregoing acts and conduct of Hebert, I
conclude that Respondent thereby violated Section 8 ( a)(1).
N The Conduct of Benjamin Waldo and Calvin
Parmalee
Q Mr. Hebert , did you tell Stone you were going to
give him some notes with some men ' s names on them,
and to question these people and ask how they were
going to vote?
A Repeat the question
James Granger ' s testimony is uncontroverted and I find
that, the day before the second election, he and
Leaderman Willie Andry were walking through a shop in
the shipyard when they passed Benjamin Waldo. Andry
called out to Waldo that Granger was "another union
man " Parmalee was standing nearby and, after Waldo
inquired of Granger whether he was in fact a union
supporter and received an affirmative answer, Waldo
314 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
exclaimed "after tomorrow this is another man that would
be gone " Parmalee broke into laughter and inquired
whether Granger was a member of the Union, and
Granger confessed that he was. With this, the
conversation terminated
The General Counsel argues that the statements of
Waldo and Parmalee are attributable to Respondent and
that they were coercive within the purview of Section
8(a)(I) Respondent contends that it is not responsible for
the acts and conduct of Waldo and Parmalee because they
lack the statutory indicia of supervisory authority.
Granger testified that Waldo worked in the aluminum
shop and "was sort of an inspector, a lower echelon
inspector Wasn't a chief inspector " Granger described
Waldo's duties as inspection work to ascertain whether
certain small parts were adequately fabricated in addition
to Waldo, there were three female inspectors in the shop
who performed the same tasks as Waldo under the
direction of a chief inspector Hudson Bourgeois testified
without dispute that Waldo receives an hourly rate of
$2 50, that the starting rate in the yard is $2, and that the
top nonsupervisory position in the Company is that of a
leadman who is paid $3.91 per hour Bourgeois' testimony
is also undisputed that Waldo possesses no authority to
hire or discharge employees, to assign work to employees,
to make changes in their status, to promote them, or to
recommend any alteration in their terms or conditions of
employment Accordingly, I find that Waldo is not a
supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(l 1) of the Act
Granger related that Calvin Parmalee walked through
the shop asking "Why isn't this moving" or "What is
wrong with this " While Granger sought to establish
Parmalee's supervisory status by stating that the latter
granted Granger time off from work, he confessed that he
asked permission to absent himself from an individual
named Joe who referred him to Parmalee solely for
purpose of noting the time lost on his timecard which
Parmalee had in his possession Hudson Bourgeois
testified without contradiction that Parmalee possesses
none of the statutory indicia of supervisory authority and
that Parmalee's authority is similar to that possessed by
Clifton Stone and Bill Green, both of whom are alleged to
be "employees" in the General Counsel's complaint I
therefore find that Parmalee is not a supervisor under the
Act As I have found that Waldo and Parmalee are not
statutory supervisors, I conclude that their statements, as
reported by Granger, are not binding upon Respondent
and that it did not thereby violate Section 8(a)(1) I shall
accordingly dismiss the complaint insofar as it attributes
the commission of unfair labor practices to Respondent by
virtue of their conduct
O The Conduct of Supervisors Neville Levy and
John T Knight
The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) by a series of speeches delivered by Captain
Neville Levy, Respondent's president, and Colonel John
T. Knight, an official of Respondent, to the employees
shortly before the second election Inasmuch as I have
found that Respondent had indulged in an extensive series
of acts of interference, restraint, and coercion prior to the
second election which were violative of Section 8(a)(1),
and in view of the conclusion herein made that this
misconduct so interfered with the holding of a free and
untrammeled second election on September 12 which
warrants the scheduling of another vote, I deem it
unnecessary to consider whether these speeches were
violative of the Act. Even if these addresses were found to
be unlawful and coercive of the employees' freedom of
choice, a consideration of that effect would unduly extend
this opinion Moreover, such a finding would merely be
cumulative
P The Objection to the Election
As heretofore noted, the Union filed an objection to the
election held on September 12 which does not find its
parallel in the complaint. In this objection, the Union
charges that Respondent interfered with that election by
the conduct of Supervisor John Sisson who "was seated
approximately twenty-five feet away from the voting line
at the New Orleans facility and during the afternoon
session, called out voters' names as they stood in line, and
made a thumbs-down motion with his hand," and Sisson
was observed in the voting area talking to two men as
they lined up to vote
Uncontroverted testimony concerning this incident was
elicited from employee Thomas Huggins I find that, while
Huggins was standing in line waiting to vote, Sisson was
located approximately 25 feet away where he proceeded to
gesture with his hands pointing his thumbs toward the
floor According to Huggins, he interpreted this gesture to
mean that Sisson was urging the employees to vote
against the Union Huggins also observed Sisson speaking
to some voters on the line but the former was unable to
overhear the content of the conversations
Huggins testified that Sisson was his "immediate
supervisor" who assigned work to approximately 13
employees under him, grants time off, and disciplines
employees as evidenced by the fact that he told an
employee to return home and procure workshoes
However, the parties stipulated at the hearing that Sisson
was a leaderman with the same authority and duties as
Calvin Parmalee, Bill Green, and Clifton Stone I have
heretofore found that Parmalee was not a supervisor
within the meaning of the Act, and that the General
Counsel alleged in his complaint that Green and Stone
were "employees " In light of the stipulation, I do not
credit Huggins' testimony that Sisson possessed and
exercised the authority of a supervisor and find that
Sisson was a rank-and-file employee
In announcing its new rule relating to electioneering at
the polls by word or presence, the Board addressed its
concern to "last minute electioneering or pressure, and
unfair advantage from prolonged conversations between
representatives of any party to the election "" (Emphasis
supplied.) So far as this record stands, there is absolutely
no evidence that Respondent instigated Sisson's actions or
even tolerated them Moreover, although Sisson was in
the voting area for a considerable period of time,
according to Huggins' testimony, he was not admonished
by the Board agent conducting the election or ordered to
leave Accordingly, I conclude that Respondent was not
responsible for or bound by this rank-and-file employee's
activity I shall therefore recommend that this objection
be overruled
I have heretofore found and concluded that Respondent
indulged in an extensive series of acts and conduct
designed to interfere with, restrain, and coerce its
employees in their exercise of their rights guaranteed
under Section 7 of the statute and, by so doing, thereby
created an atmosphere which made it impossible for its
employees to express their free choice in the election
"See Mitchem , Inc, 170 NLRB No 46
EQUITABLE EQUIPMENT CO., INC.
which was held on September 12 1 shall therefore
recommend that, in addition to ordering Respondent to
refrain from engaging in any like or related unfair labor
practices found herein, the election be nullified and that
another election be conducted at an appropriate time.
IV THE hFFLCT OF T1IE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCL
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with Respondent's
operations described in section 1, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce
V THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(I)
of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act I have also found that
Respondent, by the commission of unfair labor practices
proscribed by the Act, thereby engaged in objectionable
conduct which interfered with the election held on
September 12, 1968 1 shall therefore recommend that the
election be set aside and another be conducted at such
time as may be appropriate
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions, and upon the entire record in this proceeding,
I make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
2 The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
3 By interfering with, restraining, and coercing
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(I) of the Act
4 By the aforesaid unfair labor practices, Respondent
has interfered with and illegally affected the results of the
Board election held on September 12, 1968
5 The aforesaid conduct constitutes conduct affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and the entire record in the case, and
pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended , I recommend that Respondent,
Equitable Equipment Co , Inc and its Wholly Owned
Subsidiary Equitable-Higgins Shipyards, Inc , New
Orleans, Louisiana, its officers, agents , successors, and
assigns, shall
I Cease and desist from
(a) Interrogating employees concerning their union
activities in a manner constituting interference , restraint,
or coercion within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
(b) Threatening employees that the shipyard would
close and their jobs would be lost if they voted for or
315
assisted the Union
(c) Creating the impression of surveillance among the
employees that their union activities are under
surveillance
(d) Threatening employees with discharge or other
reprisals if they joined, voted for, or assisted the Union
(e) Promising employees economic and other benefits if
they refrained from supporting the Union.
(f) Instructing employees to interrogate other employees
concerning their voting preferences in Board elections
(g) Threatening employees with a reduction of wage
rates if they voted for the Union.
(h) Ordering employees to convey threats to other
employees that the shipyard would be terminated if the
employees cast the ballots for the Union.
(i) Threatening employees with reprisals for failing to
wear its election campaign insignia
(f) Threatening to withhold wage increases if the
employees voted for the Union
2 Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Post at its places of business in New Orleans and
Madisonville, Louisiana, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix"" Copies of said notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 15, after
being duly signed by the Respondent, shall be posted by it
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 15, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith 14
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that !the election conducted
in'the appropriate unit of Respondent's employees on
September 12, 1968, be set aside and another election
directed at an appropriate time
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be
dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not
specifically found herein, and that the objection to the
election be overruled
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order " shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board ' s Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order " shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order "
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that'
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning
their activities on behalf of New Orleans Metal Trades
Council or any other labor organization in a manner
constituting interference , restraint , or coercion within
316 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the meaning of Section 8(a)( 1) of the Act
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that the
shipyard will be closed and that they will lose their jobs
if they vote for or assist labor unions.
WE WILL NOT create the impression among our
employees that we are spying on their activities on
behalf of a union
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge
or other reprisals if they join, or vote for, or assist a
labor organization.
WE WILL NOT promise our employees economic and
other benefits if they vote against a union or cease
joining or supporting a union.
WE WILL NOT instruct our employees to question
other employees concerning their voting preferences in
Labor Board elections
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that we will
reduce their wages if they vote for a union.
WE WILL NOT order our employees to convey our
threats to other employees that the shipyard would be
closed if they voted the Union in.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with reprisals if
they do not wear our election campaign buttons
WE WILL NOT threaten to withhold wage increases if
our employees select a union
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
EQUITABLE EQUIPMENT CO.,
INC. AND ITS WHOLLY
OWNED SUBSIDIARY
EQUITABLE-HIGGINS
SHIPYARDS, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced,
or covered by any other material.
If Employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions , they may communicate
directly with the Board ' s Regional Office , T6024 Federal
Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans,
Louisiana 70113, Telephone 504-527-6361