F & F Laboratories, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 13, 1973

204 N.L.R.B. 121 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

LUCY ELLEN CANDY
Lucy Ellen Candy Division of F & F Laboratories, Inc.
and International Union , United Automobile, Aero-
space & Agricultural Implement Workers of Ameri-
ca (UAW). Cases 38-CA-1578 and 38-RC-1206
June 13, 1973
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
On April 6, 1973, Administrative Law Judge
George Turitz issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel
filed a brief in support of the Administrative Law
Judge's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that Respondent Lucy Ellen Candy Division of
F & F Laboratories, Inc., Sullivan, Illinois, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Case 38-RC-1206 be
remanded to the Regional Director for Region 13 for
the purpose of opening and counting the challenged
ballots and thereafter preparing and causing to be
served on the parties a revised tally of ballots. If the
revised tally of ballots shows that the Petitioner, Inter-
national Union, United Automobile, Aerospace &
Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW),
has received a majority of the valid ballots cast in the
election, the Regional Director is ordered to certify it
as the collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the revised tally of
ballots shows that a majority of the valid ballots cast
in the election was not for the Petitioner the Regional
Director for Region 13 shall conduct a new election
at such time as he deems that the circumstances per-
121
mit the free choice of a bargaining representative.
[Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot-
note omitted from publication.]
i Respondent 's request for oral argument is hereby denied, since, in our
opinion , the record , including the exceptions and briefs , adequately presents
the issues and the positions of the parties The Respondent has excepted to
certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge . It is the
Board 's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge's
resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all
of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect.
Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544 enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3)
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his
findings
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE TURITZ, Administrative Law Judge: On July 21,
1972,1 International Union, United Automobile, Aero-
space, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW) (the Union), in Case 38-RC-1206, filed a petition
for certification of representatives of employees of Lucy
Ellen Candy Division of F & F Laboratories, Inc. (Respon-
dent and, at times, the Company). On August 7 the Compa-
ny and the Union entered into a stipulation for certification
upon consent election which was duly approved by a repre-
sentative of the National Labor Relations Board (the
Board), and pursuant to which the Regional Director for
Region 13 conducted an election by secret ballot on August
23. The tally of ballots disclosed that 49 ballots were cast
for, and 54 against, the Union and that 12, a number suffi-
cient to affect the results of the election, were challenged.
On August 29 the Union filed objections to the election. On
October 10 the Regional Director issued a report on chal-
lenged ballots and objections and direction of hearing, di-
recting that the Officer-in-Charge of Sub-Region 38 arrange
a hearing on the objections and challenges and that Case
38-RC-1206 thereafter be transferred to and continued be-
fore the Board in Washington.
Upon a charge filed by the Union in Case 38-CA-1578
on September 20 and served Respondent on September 21,
the Board, through the Officer-in-Charge of Sub-Region 38,
on October 31 issued a complaint and notice of hearing
against Respondent, which duly filed its answer denying all
allegations of unfair labor practices.
On November 7 the Officer-in-Charge issued an order
consolidating Cases 38-CA-1578 and 38-RC-1206 and a
notice of consolidated hearing, pursuant to which a hearing
was held before me on December 7 at Sullivan, Illinois. The
General Counsel, Respondent, and the Union were repre-
sented by their respective counsel at the hearing and have
filed briefs. At the hearing the challenges were withdrawn
and they are not at issue.
Upon the entire record and from my observation of the
witnesses, I make the following:
1 All dates in this Decision , unless otherwise stated, were in 1972.
122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT -EMPLOYER
Lucy Ellen Candy Division of F & F Laboratories, Inc.,
is an Illinois corporation having an office and place of
business in Sullivan, Illinois , where it is engaged in the
manufacture, sale, and distribution of candy. In the course
and conduct of its operations Respondent annually sells
and ships from its Sullivan plant directly to customers locat-
ed outside the State of Illinois products valued at in excess
of $50,000, and annually purchases and causes to be trans-
ferred and delivered to its Sullivan plant directly from
points located outside the State of Illinois goods and materi-
als valued at in excess of $50,000. I find that Respondent is
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended (the Act).
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace,
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND THE OBJECTIONS
A. Introduction
About the end of May 1972 Steve Land and Daisy Keown
were in contact with the Union and spoke to employees
about organizing. In early June some employees signed
cards authorizing the Union to represent them in collective
bargaining with Respondent . These activities culminated in
the filing of the Petition on July 21 and the election on
August 23.
The principal issues litigated at the hearing were whether
Respondent , through Jean Colclasure, promised employees
benefits if they rejected the Union , threatened employees
with discharge , more onerous working conditions , and other
reprisals if they supported the Union , and whether these
acts , and its interrogation of employees and applicants for
employment as to their union sympathies , interfered with
the Board election. Colclasure was personnel manager and
was the person who hired employees.
B. Threats of Reprisals
In late June or early July a wrapping machine near
Colclasure's office broke down and was being repaired by
Mark Dickens, her son-in-law. The half-dozen or so em-
ployees who worked at the machine were clustered about it
while he worked. Colclasure came over and made a remark
to her son-in-law. Steve Land testified that she told Dickens
that he had better look for another job, and that when
Dickens looked at her quizzically, she explained, looking at
the group and smiling , that union cards were being passed
out and that if the plant became unionized, it would be
closed down and Dickens would be out of a job.
Colclasure's version was that she said: "Mark, you better
start looking for another job because the girls are passing
out union cards and if they have their way, this place may
go to union. You may not have a job." She also testified that
she made the statement "in a humorous way" and, in re-
sponse to a leading question, that she laughed specifically.
Colclasure impressed me unfavorably with respect to
credibility and I have credited Land's testimony over hers.
Further, I do not credit her testimony that her threat was
intended as a joke. In this connection it should be noted that
even if so intended it would have been coercive and viola-
tive of the Act. See A. P. Green Fire Brick Company v.
N.L.R.B., 326 F.2d 910 (C.A. 8, 1964), enfg. 140 NLRB
1067, where the court stated at page 914: "executives who
threaten in jest run the risk that those subject to their power
might take them in earnest...."
I find that Respondent threatened that if the employees
chose to organize and to bargain collectively, it would close
the plant and discharge them, and that Respondent thereby
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Terry DeVore testified as follows: Approximately I week
after the election a group of about a half-dozen employees
were chatting with Colclasure in her office during a break.
One of the employees, probably DeVore himself, brought
up the subject of the Union, and during the discussion
which followed Colclasure said that had it not been for
Steve Land and a few others the Union would never had got
"stirred up" in the first place. She mentioned Land's pay
rate and said, "Steve will get his . . . if he don't stop causing
trouble about the Union in here in Lucy Ellen,. . . we have
a few choice jobs for him." Colclasure categorically denied
DeVore's testimony. I was favorably impressed by DeVore
with respect to credibility and have credited him over Col-
clasure. I find that Colclasure made the statement testified
to by DeVore. I further find that Respondent thereby
threatened employees with more onerous working condi-
tions if they gave assistance or support to the Union and
that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
C. Interrogation
Persons interested in employment filed written applica-
tions and from time to time, as employees were needed,
Colclasure contacted them by telephone and called them for
interviews. In July and August Colclasure interviewed
about 25 applicants, of whom she hired 11.
On August 3 Colclasure telephoned Tom Short, a boy of
16 who had filed an application, and asked him whether he
could come in to work the next day. He said he could. She
then asked him his feelings towards the Union, and he said
he had none either way because of his age and because he
had never worked under a union. Colclasure told him she
could not hire anyone who was for the Union, whereupon
he said he was against it. She then told him to come in to
work the next day and to wear white trousers and a white
T-shirt,2 which he did. A week or so later, but before the
2 Colclasure denied speaking to Short but testified that she spoke to his
mother, who, when asked by her how Short felt about the Union , replied that
he would feel any way Colclasure wanted him to feel. I have credited Short's
testimony that he spoke with Colclasure. Assuming, as is possible, that both
conversations took place , the conversation with the mother would in the
LUCY ELLEN CANDY
election, he told Land about the conversation with Colcla-
sure.
About August 3 or 4 Colclasure telephoned Rodney Bar-
rett, who had filed an employment application, and asked
him if he was ready to go to work for the Company. He said
that he was ready. She then asked him if he was for the
Union or against it and he said that it made no difference.
She thereupon told him to come in to work, which he did
the next day. He informed several employees , including
Land, Short, and his uncle, Gary Barrett, that Colclasure
had asked him his attitude towards the Union.
At some time prior to August Colclasure gave Danny
Barnard , an employee , an employment application for his
brother, Victor. After Victor had filled it out, Danny re-
turned it to Colclasure. Victor was interviewed by Colcla-
sure at the plant . She asked him if he could get a ride to
work, and he replied that if hired, he could travel with his
mother, who worked at a nearby plant, and his brother.
Colclasure told him that he would have to have his hair cut,
wear a white T-shirt and bluejeans , and said that she would
call him sometime in the future if she had a job for him.
About 2 or 3 weeks before the election, Colclasure asked
Danny how Victor felt about the Union. Danny said that
he did not know. Apparently round the same time-Victor
testified that it was late July or early August-Colclasure
telephoned Victor. After telling him that he would have to
have his hair cut and wear a white T-shirt and bluejeans, she
asked, "Are you for the Union?" After some thought Victor
said that he was for it, whereupon Colclasure said , "Well,
I'm sorry, I can't hire you." Victor reported his experience
to his brother, Danny. The latter did not vote in the election
but he was eligible.
On August 14 Land posted a statement on the company
bulletin board which included the following:
To tell new employees they must be against the Union
in order to be hired at L. E. is discrimination. If you
were told this upon being hired or know of someone
who was turned down because they were for the Union,
report it to the Union officials or to the Equal Employ-
ment Opportunity (sic) Commission in Wash.
The statement, which was read by Colclasure, remained
posted about a day and a half.
In a letter to the Board agent conducting the investigation
of the objections Respondent's counsel stated that the rea-
son Colclasure questioned applicants as to their feelings
about unions was that "she did not want to hire anyone who
would subsequently resign if the Union were to win the
election and the employees then have to join the Union." In
the absence of other explanation, I infer that Colclasure
stated this reason to Respondent's attorneys for the purpose
of having it communicated to the Board. At the hearing
Colclasure testified that the reason she questioned the appli-
cants was that, because of all the "conflict . . . chaos .. .
problems" in the plant at the time, she "did not want to get
anyone . . . in any position down there that was strongly
one way or the other at that particular time ." I do not credit
Colclasure and I find that the reason she interrogated the
expected natural course of events have come to Short 's attention and would
therefore have been as coercive as the conversation with Short directly
123
applicants and Danny Barnard was that she wanted to
avoid hiring applicants favorable to the Union?
Colclasure's interrogation of these individuals, including
her interrogation of Danny Barnard about his brother, was
an integral part of the hiring process. In that context the
interrogation promised the employees questioned, as well as
others who might hear of it, that those opposing the Union
had a better chance of being rewarded with jobs, and threat-
ened that those favoring the Union would not be hired or,
if already working, would be in danger of losing their jobs.
It is not material that some of the employees questioned
were not, and never became, employees of Respondent. See
United Gas Pipe Line Company and Pennzoil Pipeline Compa-
ny, 194 NLRB 765. I find that by Colclasure' s interrogation
of the two Barnards, Short, and Rodney Barrett, Respon-
dent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I also find that by
telling Victor Barnard, in the circumstances which I have
described, that she could not hire him, and by telling Short
that she could not hire anyone who was for the Union,
Respondent further violated Section 8(a)(1).
Colclasure's interrogation of Short, Victor Barnard, and
Barrett was reported by them to Steve Land prior to August
10. 4 I am convinced that Land discussed that matter with
Daisy Keown, and June and Bill McDaniel; that Barrett
told Short and his uncle, Gary Barrett; and that Victor
Barnard told his brother Danny. As Colclasure's hiring pro-
cedure as applied to Victor Barnard, Barrett, and Short, was
known to the employees I have named, and there is no
evidence that any attempt was made to keep the informa-
tion secret-indeed, Land's posted statement of August 14
vaguely suggested some such practice-I infer that news of
what she was doing became known prior to the election to
a substantial number of employees eligible to vote. I there-
fore find that Colclasure's statements to and interrogation
of Short, Victor Barnard, and Barrett in the course of their
hiring interviews, and her interrogation of Danny Barnard
affected the results of the election.
D. Promises and Withholding of Benefits
1. Wage increases
Pamela Darkow testified as follows: she worked for Re-
spondent from May 1972 to a date a few days after the
election, probably until August 26. She was hired at $1.90
an hour and was told at the time that at the end of 3 months
she would receive full pay. On August 22, having been
employed at least 3 months, she asked Colclasure whether
she would be getting the increase. Colclasure replied that
Darkow could not be told anything for sure until the elec-
tion was over, but that if it went "the way they figured it
would" she would get the increase and it would be retroac-
tive to the day she completed 3 months' service. Colclasure
admitted that Darkow asked her whether she would receive
the pay increase "she was normally entitled to" and that she
answered its the affirmative but added that wages had been
frozen because of the election and that Darkow' s increase
would have to wait until then, at which time it would be
3 Of course her intent according to her own testimony at the hearing would
have been illegal.
4 Short and Barnard were not on the eligibility list for the election
124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
made retroactive. She categorically denied saying that the
retroactive increase was in any way dependent upon the
outcome of the election. I found Darkow's testimony con-
vincing and I find that Colclasure told her that whether she
got the increase depended upon how the election went, and,
in view of Respondent's known opposition to the Union,
that the natural meaning of Colclasure's statement was that
Darkow would get the increase if the Union lost the elec-
tion. I further find that Respondent thereby violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The Board has held that the withholding of customary
wage increases because of a pending election is not an un-
fair labor practice where there has been no prior promise of
an increase and where no true established practice was in
effect. See The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, Inc.,
192 NLRB 645. However, in The Great Atlantic and Pacific
Tea Company, Inc., 166 NLRB 27, the Board stated at p. 29,
fn. 1:
As a general rule, an employer, in deciding whether
to grant benefits while a representation election is
pending, should decide that question as he would if a
union were not in the picture. On the other hand, if an
employer's course of action is prompted by the union's
presence, then the employer violates the Act whether
he confers benefits or withholds them because of the
Union.
Under this principle Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act even according to Colclasure's testimony. Moreover
such action by Respondent would tend to affect the results
of the election, since employees would blame the Union for
the delay in wage increases which, in the absence of the
Union, would have been forthcoming automatically. I find
that by withholding Darkow's pay increase because of the
election Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1). See The Gates
Rubber Company, 182 NLRB 95.
2. Trip to Chicago
The report on objections states that on August 2 Respon-
dent posted a notice announcing an employee trip to a
Chicago plant, apparently at Respondent's expense. While
the record shows that such a trip was announced prior to the
election, there is no evidence that the announcement was
made on August 2 or at any other further identifiable time.
As I have no basis for finding that the promise was made
within 6 months of the filing of the charge or after the filing
of the petition, it is unnecessary for me to pass upon this
incident.'
3. Beer and pizza party
Terry DeVore testified that about I or 2 weeks before the
election , when he and one or more other employees were in
Colclasure's office during a break , he asked her if the em-
ployees would get something like a beer party if they did not
vote for the Union and that she replied that "Bill" had
planned a beer-and-pizza party on his boat . Colclasure's
3 The incident was not fully litigated at the hearing . Prior to the election
Respondent, pursuant to its policy of "freezing" benefits pending the elec-
tion, canceled the trip
superior at the plant, Wester, and her husband were both
named Bill. DeVore testified that at that time the election
did not matter to him and he wanted to know if he would
get some benefit out of it. Colclasure denied "stating to an
employee that they could have a beer and pizza party if they
voted against the Union in this proceeding"; and she stated
that she had no recollection of any employee asking what
they could get if they voted against the Union. DeVore also
testified that after the election, this time only half seriously,
he said to Colclasure, "Well, we voted `no' for the Union
... now do we get our beer and pizza party," and that
Colclasure replied "I heard that you voted `yes' for the
union, not 'no."' This was denied by Colclasure but I find
that the incident occurred as testified by DeVore.
A party at an employer's expense celebrating a union's
defeat, or a promise of such a party, in some circumstances
could be construed as a reward and an implied promise of
future reward for rejecting collective bargaining. See Edro
Corporation and Anasco Gloves, Inc., 147 NLRB 1167, 1176,
enfd. 345 F.2d 264 (C.A. 2, 1965). However, notwithstand-
ing that the party mentioned by Colclasure was conditioned
upon the Union's defeat, I find no such promise of reward
here. The party was not to be on Company time or in the
plant; the idea was somewhat tentative-Bill was "plan-
ning" a party; and the whole idea came into discussion on
the initiative of an employee. Colclasure's remark could not
reasonably be construed as earnest of Respondent's power
over the employees. See Movsovitz and Son, Inc., 194 NLRB
444.
I find that by Colclasure's talk about a beer-and-pizza
party after the election, Respondent did not violate 8(a)(1)
of the Act or engage in conduct tending to affect the results
of the election.
4. Unspecified benefits
On August 11 Respondent distributed to all employees a
letter urging them to vote "no" in the election and discuss-
ing various matters. The letter stated: " . . . I will answer
your question to the best of my ability, but for the time
being, I must talk and do things within the requirements of
the law and instructions from our lawyer. For example, I
can't talk about benefits or changes which might be made
if no union were on the scene." In closing, it stated: "We
have worked together without a union, you got all of your
benefits without a union, you got your jobs without a union
and all of you can keep your jobs without a union."
I find that the letter made no promise of benefit or threat
of reprisal impliedly or otherwise contingent upon the out-
come of the election. I further find that it was not violative
of the Act and did not tend to affect the results of the
election. Cf. Uarco Incorporated, 169 NLRB 1153.
E. Discriminatory Bulletin-Board Privileges
Respondent maintained a bulletin board which it also
allowed the employees to use for noncompany purposes.
During the preelection period three letters were posted fa-
voring the Union and two opposed. None of the letters
stayed up long-some were removed the day they were
posted, others the next day. Two of the prounion letters
LUCY ELLEN CANDY
were posted by Land. He removed the first on his own
initiative at the end of the day on which he posted it; he
removed his second letter the day after he posted it, when
Colclasure told him that it was personally offensive to Wes-
ter." Land testified that she ordered its removal; Colclasure
testified that she merely suggested it and Land readily ac-
quiesced. Colclasure testified that she instructed Tolen to
remove his letter, which was a reply to Land's, after it had
been up as long as his ; Tolen testified that he removed it on
his own initiative. The other letters were removed by the
writers on their own initiative.
The gravamen of the Union's contention on this issue,
and the basis upon which it was litigated, was the alleged
inequality of bulletin board use allowed as between oppo-
nents and advocates of the Union. I find that Respondent
did not allow opponents of the Union greater use of the
bulletin board than it allowed its advocates and that
Colclasure's action in this regard did not tend to affect the
results of the election.
IV CONCLUDING FINDINGS AS TO THE OBJECTIONS
I have found that after the filing of the petition and before
the election Colclasure, by her interrogation of applicants in
their hiring interviews as to their union sympathies, prom-
ised that those opposing the Union had a better chance of
being rewarded with jobs, and threatened, first, that appli-
cants favoring the Union would not be hired, and, second,
that individuals already employed would be in danger of
losing their jobs . I have found further , that information
about such interrogation became known to a substantial
number of eligible employees and affected the results of the
election. Finally, I have found that by withholding, because
of the election, wage increases which would normally have
been granted automatically, and by informing an employee
that a wage increase depended upon the outcome of the
election , Respondent further affected the results of the elec-
tion.
I find that the results of the election did not represent the
employees' free choice.
V THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
I find that the activities of Respondent set forth in section
III, above , occurring with its operations occurring in section
I, 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 obstruct-
ing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
VI. THE REMEDY
As I have found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices , I recommend that the Board issue the
Order set forth below requiring the Respondent to cease and
Colclasure testified that the letter she spoke to Land about was his first,
which was in fact somewhat harsher in tone than the second The question
is not important , but various circumstances have convinced me that Colcla-
sure was mistaken as to the identity of the letter.
125
desist from said unfair labor practices and to take certain
affirmative action which will effectutate the policies of the
Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing finding of fact and upon
the entire record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent, Lucy Ellen Candy Division of F & F
Laboratories, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employ-
ees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices with-
in Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The unfair labor practices described above are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and of the
entire record in this case, I make the following:
RECOMMENDATION AS TO THE REPRESENTA-
TION CASE
It is recommended that the ballots of
Tim Booker Joe Mattox
Max Cummins Jim Neal
Alvis Dobbs Bob Phelps
Mark Hamblin Debra Robinson
Michael Harshman David Schmidt
Cary Marlow Janet Vogel
be opened and counted and a revised tally of ballots includ-
ing such count be issued. If such revised tally shows a major-
ity for the Union, it is recommended that a certification of
representative be issued. If however such revised tally of
ballots shows no majority for the Union, it is recommended
that the election be set aside and a new election conducted
when the Regional Director deems the circumstances such
as to permit the free choice of a bargaining representative.
Upon the foregoing finding of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER?
Respondent , Lucy Ellen Candy Division of F & F Labo-
ratories , Inc., its officers , agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
7 In the event that no exceptions are filed as provided in Sec. 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations , automatically become the findings, conclu-
sions, decision , and order of the Board and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating job applicants as to their union sympa-
thies.
(b) Interrogating employees as to the union sympathies
of job applicants.
(c) Threatening employees with more onerous working
conditions if they assist or support International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America (UAW), or any other labor orga-
nization.
(d) Threatening that if employees organize or choose to
bargain collectively, the plant would be closed down and
employees discharged.
(e) Telling applicants for employment that they would
not be hired if they favored the Union.
(f) Withholding wage increases or other benefits which
employees would normally have because of the pendency of
a Board election.
(g) Informing employees that their wage increases are
contingent upon the outcome of a Board election.
(h) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which, I find,
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its place of business in Sullivan, Illinois, copies
of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix."8 Copies
of said notice, to be furnished by the Officer-in-Charge of
Subregion 38, shall, after being signed by a representative
of Respondent, be posted by Respondent 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. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(b) Notify said Officer-in-Charge of Sub-Region 38, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply here-
with.
WE WILL NOT question applicants for employment as
to their union sympathies.
WE WILL NOT tell applicants for employment that they
cannot be hired if they favor the Union or any labor
organization.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with more onerous work-
ing conditions or other reprisals because you assist or
support International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW) or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT threaten that if employees organize or
choose to bargain collectively, the plant will be closed
or employees discharged.
WE WILL NOT, because an NLRB election is pending,
withhold wage increases or other benefits which you
would normally have.
WE WILL NOT inform employees that their wage in-
creases are contingent upon the outcome of an NLRB
election.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain or coerce you in the exercise of your right
to self-organization, to bargain collectively through
representative of your own choosing, or to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all such activities, except to the
extent that such rights might be affected by an agree-
ment requiring membership in a labor organizaion as
a condition of employment as authorized in Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
Dated By
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT question you about the union sympa-
thies of applicants for employment.
8 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "
Lucy ELLEN CANDY DIVISION
OF F & F LABORATORIES, INC
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
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. Any questions concerning
this notice or compliance with its provisions may be direct-
ed to the Board's Office, Savings Center Tower, 10th Floor,
411 Hamilton Blvd., Peoria, Illinois 61602, Telephone 309-
673-9312.