Grede Foundries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 26, 1973

205 N.L.R.B. 39 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

GREDE FOUNDRIES, INC.
Grede Foundries , Inc. (Milwaukee) and International
Molder's and Allied Workers Union , AFL-CIO-
CLC
Grede Foundries , Inc. (Reedsburg) and International
Union, United Automobile , Aerospace and Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America (UAW). Cases
30-CA-1990, 30-CA-2040, and 30-RC-1722
July 26, 1973
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
On February 28, 1973, Administrative Law Judge
Almira Abbot Stevenson issued the attached Decision
in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent and Gen-
eral Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs,
and Respondent filed a brief in opposition to General
Counsel's exceptions and brief in support thereof.
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 I of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt her recommended Order.
Our dissenting colleague is satisfied, as are we, with
the Administrative Law Judge's finding that the
Respondent's posters and circulars standing alone
were not violative of the Act. But he is of the opinion
that when the posters and circulars and Grede's
speech are "taken together" there is an unlawful
threat in them, for the message then conveyed is that
if the employee strikes in an effort to procure a con-
tract, the plant will close down and he will be out of
a job. However, we have carefully read Grede's
speech and we find nothing therein, as even the por-
tions deemed most significant by Member Fanning
demonstrate,' which supports this conclusion.
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 Grede Foundries, Incorporated, Milwau-
kee and Reedsburg, Wisconsin, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in said recommended Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election conducted
on June 14, 1972, in Case 30-RC-1722 be set aside
and that this proceeding be, and it hereby is, remand-
ed to the Regional Director for Region 30 for the
purpose of conducting a new election at such time as
39
he deems that circumstances permit the free choice of
a bargaining representative.
[Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot-
note omitted from publication.]
i Member Fanning would not affirm the Administrative Law Judge's con-
clusion that neither the circulation of a poster depicting a locked plant gate
with the legend "Vote No, Avoid this," followed by the posting of three
circulars announcing the closing of various unionized foundries, nor an
antiunion speech given by Respondent 's Chairman fo the Board Grede to a
massed group of employees at Respondent ' s Reedsburg plant violated Sec.
8(a)(l) The posters and circulars, taken by themselves, might amount to
nothing more than a lawful prediction of the economic disadvantages that
might result if a union won the election there . The locked gate poster was
accompanied by a letter explaining that the plant closing and attendant loss
of jobs might result if customers canceled their orders as a result of an
economic strike However, when considered against the backdrop of Grede's
speech, the poster and circulars appear more coercive. Grede constantly
makes reference to the fact that while unions have often won elections in his
plants, he has never signed a contract At one point he concludes, "Let me
just sum up-50 years, no contract " While he is careful to say he will bargain
with the union , he leads the employees to believe that such bargaining will
be futile . "[Ili a majority of the people want to have a union represent
them, we will deal with that union I've done it before , we'll do it again Now
my dealings before have never resulted in a contract so the union has usually
after they've been elected, they've kind of dried up and blown away." When
the speech and the circulars and the locked gate poster are read and analyzed
together by the Reedsburg employee the message is clear If the union wins
the election, his chances of securing a contract are slight , and if he strikes
in an effort to procure such contract , the plant will close and he will be out
of a job A vote for unionization is an exercise in futility.
Member Fanning would therefore find that the locked gate poster, the
circulars announcing the closures of unionized plants, and Grede's speech,
taken together, constitute an implied threat by Respondent which is not
based on "demonstrably probable consequences beyond [its ] control" and
thus are violative of Sec. 8(a)(1). N L R B v Gissel Packing Co, 395 U S 575,
618 (1969)
2 The dissent's quotation from the speech of "Let me just sum up-50
years, no contract" is not the complete sentence spoken by Grede at this
point The whole sentence reads, "Let me sum up-50 years, no contract, Job
security , see our Quarter Century Club " Here, as elsewhere in the speech,
Grede is boasting of the fact that , without a union and union contract, he
has provided job security for his employees This is not tantamount to telling
the employees that "A vote for unionization is an exercise in futility."
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ALMIRA ABBOT STEVENSON, Administrative Law Judge: A
hearing was held in this consolidated proceeding at Reeds-
burg, Wisconsin, December 11, 12, and 13, 1972, and at
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, December 14, 1972. The charge was
filed in Case 30-CA-1990 by International Molder's and
Allied Workers Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, and served on the
Respondent June 15, 1972, alleging the commission of un-
fair labor practices at the Respondent's Milwaukee (re-
ferred to in the record as Milwaukee Steel) plant. The
charge in Case 30-CA-2040 was filed by International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW), and served on the
Respondent July 27, 1972; it alleged the commission of
unfair labor practices at the Respondent's Reedsburg Wis-
consin, plant. Pursuant to a petition filed by UAW in Case
30-RC-1722 April 17, 1972, an election was held in a unit
of production and maintenance employees at the Reeds-
burg plant June 14, 1972; UAW lost the election 56-116,
with 11 challenged ballots, and filed objections. On October
2, 1972, the Regional Director of Region 30 of the National
Labor Relations Board issued a complaint in Case 30-
205 NLRB No. 12
40 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CA-2040. On November 16, 1972, the Regional Director
issued a complaint in Case 30-CA-1990 and consolidated
the two complaint cases. He also found that the issues posed
by UAW's Objections 1, 2,3,4, and 6 in Case 30-RC-1722
were similar to issues in Case 30-CA-2040, and consolidat-
ed that representation case with the complaint cases. The
consolidated complaint was amended at the hearing. Mold-
ers filed a petition April 17, 1972, and went to an election
in a production and maintenance unit at the Milwaukee
plant June 9, 1972; it also lost, but the Board certified the
results; that matter is therefore not before me.
The issues are whether the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by
granting wage increases, failing to grant improved insurance
coverage, posting and distributing certain literature, and
soliciting grievances at the Reedsburg and Milwaukee
plants; and by interrogating employees, surveilling their
union activities, and threatening employees at the Reeds-
burg plant. Also at issue is whether the Respondent inter-
fered with the Reedsburg election by such conduct. The
Respondent denies that it committed unfair labor practices
or interfered with the election.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of
the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT i AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Ing Ward had with plant employees January 28, 1972. In
addition, Molder's Representative Dale Tuel testified, with-
out dispute, that he gave a Molder's pamphlet to Eugene
Schneider, then works manager of the Milwaukee plant, on
the first day Tuel handbilled at the plant gate the week of
January 28, 1972.
That the Respondent waged a vigorous campaign to de-
feat the Unions in both plants is made clear below.
A. Reedsburg and Milwaukee
Paragraph 6 of the complaint alleges that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) by the following conduct at both its
Milwaukee and Reedsburg plants.
6(a). Wage increases: The General Counsel contends that
the Respondent violated the Act by increasing the number
and amount of wage raises given to base-rate (incentive
pieceworker) employees and to day-rate (hourly paid non-
piece worker) employees at the Milwaukee plant, and to
day-rate employees at Reedsburg. The Respondent con-
tends that there was no substantial departure from its estab-
lished policy of granting wage increases except for certain
increases given Milwaukee employees which were governed
by special nonunion considerations.
The record shows the following with regard to wage in-
creases alleged to be unlawful:
Reedsburg
I JURISDICTION
The Respondent admits, and I find, that it is a Wisconsin
corporation engaged in the operation of foundries at several
locations including those at Milwaukee and Reedsburg,
Wisconsin, involved herein; and that it shipped products
valued in excess of $50,000 from each of these two plants
directly to points outside Wisconsin during the past calen-
dar year. The Respondent also admits, and I conclude, that
it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
in Section 2(2),(6), and (7) of the Act.
The Respondent admits, and I also find, that Molders
and UAW are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
II THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
As stated above, the petitions were filed April 17, 1972.
The record establishes that the Respondent became aware
of the UAW campaign at the Reedsburg plant in late Janu-
ary or early February 1972. Thus, Arthur Swenink, an ad-
mitted supervisor, testified that he had been informed by
then that one of the employees, Bill Demaske, "was pushing
the union." In addition, Harold "Woody" Steinhauer, the
works manager in charge of plant operations, testified that
he learned of the union activity in early February.
The Respondent became aware of the Molder's campaign
at the Milwaukee plant about the same time. Thus, both
employee Albert Hankins and Industrial Relations Director
R. J. Ward testified that the Union was discussed at a meet-
1 In resolving credibility issues, I have in certain instances credited some
and discredited other testimony of the same witness To believe some, but
not all, of what a witness says is a common phenomenon N L R B v Univer-
sal Camera Corp, 179 F 2d 749, 754 (C A 2)
Av. No . Day- Day-
Empi . rate rate
Incr. Incr.
1970
1971
1972
229
131
209
Av. No.
59
35
69
Milwaukee
2iX7
25.7%
26.7%
33.0%
Day_
Empl. rate rate
Incr. Incr.
1970 269 214 79
1971 244 144 29
1972 284 239 134
Total Empi.
rec, rec.
Incr. Incr.
1970 293 109%
1971 173 71%
1972 373 131%
[See p . 41 for fns. 2 and 3.]
GREDE FOUNDRIES, INC. 41
R. J. Ward, the Respondent's director of industrial rela-
tions, testified that the Respondent's current wage policy
was adopted in 1968. The policy required that all employees
be classified and it provided a system for conforming the
rate of each incentive worker with that established for his
classification, and for bringing the pay rate of each hourly
employee within the range established for his classification,
with certain exceptions, such as new hires. The plan was put
into effect at the Reedsburg, Wauwatosa, Waukesha, Wis-
consin, and Kingsford, Michigan, plants about that time;
and at the Wichita, Kansas, plant 18 month later. Ward
testified that the plan did not become fully effective at the
Milwaukee plant until February 1972. Under the plan, the
Respondent continuously audits the standards for base
rates, and surveys wages and fringe benefits provided in the
areas where it operates. New classifications and pay-rate
schedules are issued each year providing for rate increases.
Documentary evidence was presented that such schedules
were issued for Reedsburg February 16, 1970, February 26,
1971, and February 28, 1972; and for Milwaukee February
16, 1970, February 26, 1971, and February 21, 1972. After
the new schedules are issued, Ward testified, the plant
works manager has authority to grant increases up to the
new rates at that time or at a subsequent time based upon
such factors as performance and longevity.
Ward testified that in late January or early February
1972, Eugene Schneider, who had been permitted to deviate
in some respects from company policy in running the Mil-
waukee plant, made known he intended to retire as works
manager as soon as a replacement was found. At that time,
Ward and the president and executive vice president re-
viewed the situation and decided to implement the wage
policy in full at that plant. They instituted the base rates
provided for in the schedules, and established a program to
bung all day-rate employees who were below appropriate
rate range within range over a 30- to 120-day period, as
permitted by wage control regulations. Ward testified that
the Respondent's conduct with regard to wage increases was
not affected by the advent of the Unions. The new works
manager, Frank Brendler, took over the Milwaukee plant
during the first week in June 1972.
The law provides that granting wage increases for the
purpose of inducing employees to vote against a union in a
forthcoming Board election violates Section 8(a)(1) 4 Ab-
sent such purpose, however, the granting of wage increases
during the pendency of a Board election has no inherent
tendency to discourage union adherence, and it will not do
so if the employer proceeds as he would have done had no
2 All figures cover the period from February 1, the approximate date in
1972 when the Respondent became aware of the union campaign, until June
14, the date of the 1972 election, as nearly as can be computed from the
evidence presented There is no evidence as to the average complement of
day-rate employees only The General Counsel does not contend that in-
creases given to Reedsburg base-rate employees were unlawful
3 All figures cover the period from February 28, the date when, in 1972,
the Respondent first became aware of the union campaign at the Milwaukee
plant, until June 9, the date of the 1972 election, as nearly as can be computed
from the evidence presented Base-rate employee increases affected only
downtime and delay, piece rates, which have a greater effect on earnings, are
not involved in this case
4 N L R B v Exchange Parts Company, 375 U S 405 (1964)
election been pending.5 Thus, wage increases given in sub-
stantially similar numbers and amounts at comparable
times as they have been given in the past are not unlawful.6
The undisputed evidence in this case shows that the Re-
spondent had an established policy of requiring, with cer-
tain exceptions, that its employees be paid in accord with
the appropriate rates, and of revising the rates upwards
every year around the middle or the end of February. Al-
though plant managers were allowed a year's time within
which to apply the increases to individual employees, the
Reedsburg and Milwaukee managers followed a pattern of
granting the bulk of their increases within a month or two
after the rates were changed. I find that the number and
timing of the increases given Reedsburg day-rate employees
during the spring of 1972 did not vary substantially from the
pattern followed in that plant in the preceding 2 years.
There was considerable variance between the number of
increases given during this period in 1972 and the number
given during the comparable periods of the preceding 2
years in the Milwaukee plant. However, I accept the uncon-
tradicted explanation of Industrial Relations Director
Ward, which does not seem unreasonable, that the purpose
was to regularize the Milwaukee wage structure, and was
brought about by the impending retirement of Works Man-
ager Schneider, who had been permitted to deviate from
company wage policy, and not by the impending Board
election.7
As to the amount or size of the increases given, there is
no evidence as to the size of the actual increases given in
base rates at Milwaukee; the February 21, 1972, schedules
for that plant called for smaller increases in base rates (5 to
6 cents) than had been called for in 1971 (21 to 28 cents).
As for the day-rate employees at both plants, the evidence
reveals the actual size of the increases given to only nine of
the Reedsburg employees who received increases in 1972,
and to only three who received increases in 1971 and 1970.
For Milwaukee, it reveals actual increases for 3 employees
in 1972 and 1971, and 16 in 1970. As for the rest of the
increases given, the evidence shows only that at Reedsburg
60 employees received increases ranging from 5 cents to 24
cents in 1972; 32 received 5 cents to 26 cents in 1971; and
56 received 5 cents to 16 cents in 1970. Similarly, of the
remaining wage increases granted at Milwaukee, 236 in-
creases of 5 to 52 cents were given in 1972; 141 increases of
5 to 29 cents in 1971; and 198 of 5 to 25 cents in 1970. Other
than the few referred to above, there is no way to tell the
number of employees receiving any of these amounts.
Accordingly, I conclude that the preponderance of the
evidence fails to establish that the Respondent violated the
Act by the wage increase given, and that this allegation of
the complaint should be dismissed.
6(b): The Respondent announced, in June 1972 issue of
its newsletter "Grains of Sand," that Reedsburg and Mil-
waukee employees would not presently receive the im-
proved health insurance benefits granted to employees of
other plants because of the pending Board elections. The
5 See GAF Corporation, 196 NLRB 538, Oxco Brush Division of Vistron
Corporation, 171 NLRB 512, Performance Measurements Co, Inc, 149 NLRB
1451
6 Montgomery Ward & Co, Inc, 198 NLRB No 9, W T Grant Company,
177 NLRB 469
7 See Summitville Tiles, Inc, 190 NLRB 640, fn 1
42 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent contends extending the improvements to
Reedsburg and Milwaukee employees before the election
would have been violative of the Act.
It was stipulated that the Respondent issues its newsletter
"Grains of Sand" every quarter, and that it mailed copies
of the June 1972 issue to all Milwaukee employees no later
than June 1, and to all Reedsburg employees during the first
week of June 1972. The objected-to announcement ap-
peared on pp. 4 and 5 and stated that the Company had
taken over payment of the employee weekly contribution of
$1.07 (personal) and $2.74 (personal and dependent) for
insurance coverage at four of its plants. The article stated,
however, "these extra benefits are not presently available at
Milwaukee Steel and Reedsburg due to union organiza-
tional efforts and forthcoming union elections."
Industrial Relations Director Ward testified that the
Company spotchecks fringe benefits each year when the
wage surveys are made, and takes an in-depth look at the
fringe package and insurance every 2 years. He said the
above improvements had been under consideration as far as
cost and the effect of the August 1971 wage controls were
concerned since 1971, and that the decision to grant the
improvements was made "probably in April" 1972. The
improvements constituted a change in policy, Ward testi-
fied, which the Company intended to extend to these em-
ployees regardless of the outcome of the elections, but did
not extend them before the elections because the Company
might be charged with influencing the vote. The change was
effected at the other four plants on May 21, 1972. It was
effected at the Milwaukee plant June 19, 1972, and at the
Reedsburg plant July 10, 1972, after the elections were held.
President Burleigh Jacobs also testified that the new poli-
cy on insurance premiums had been under study since May
1971. Jacobs did not remember when the decision was made
to grant the improvements except that it was made in the
spring of 1972, and he approved it.
Unlike the granting of a benefit, such as the wage increas-
es discussed above, intent is not the crucial factor when a
benefit is withheld. The test is, rather, whether it may rea-
sonably be said that withholding the benefit tended to inter-
fere with the free exercise of employee rights.8 Where an
employer proceeds as he would have done had a union been
on the scene, there is no such interference.
On the other hand, to withhold benefits which would
normally have been granted but for the presence of a union
and the pendency of an election, and so advising the em-
ployees concerned, is violative of Section 8(a)(1).9 There do
appear to be exceptions to this rule. For example, there may
be no interference where an employer can demonstrate the
existence of a reasonable ground for its action and its good
faith in taking it. Where, however, as here, the ground ad-
vanced is fear that it might be charged with an unfair labor
practice if the benefit is not withheld, the employer must
provide a basis for a "reasonable apprehension" that such
a charge would be filed.10 No basis for such an apprehen-
sion has been provided in this case." There may also be no
interference where an employer makes it clear to the em-
8 See Melville Confections, Inc v N L R B, 327 F 2d 689, 692 (C A 7,
1964), Time-O-Mane, Inc v N L R B, 264 F 2d 96, 99 (C A 7, 1959)
9 The Gates Rubber Company, 182 NLRB 95
10 GAF Corp, supra
11 Cf GAF Corp, supra
ployees involved that the benefits are being withheld only
because of its fear that to grant them might be interpreted
as an attempt to buy their votes and that the benefits will
be extended to them after the election regardless of the
vote.12 In my opinion, the Respondent completely failed to
do this. On the contrary, the criptic statement in "Grains of
Sand" advised employees that the insurance benefits were
to be extended to employees of other plants (which were
nonunion) but withheld from the putative voters due not
only to the "forthcoming union elections," but also to
"union organizational efforts," could reasonably be inter-
preted by the voters as discriminatory. Moreover, contrary
to the Respondent's contention, nothing said by William
Grede, chairman of the Respondent's board of directors, in
his speech to the Reedsburg employees on June 12, 1972,
discussed below, would be likely to change such an interpre-
tation.
In these circumstances, I conclude that the Respondent's
withholding from its Reedsburg and Milwaukee employees
the improved health insurance benefits granted to employ-
ees at other nonunion plants, and advising them that the
reason they were not receiving the benefits was "due to
union organizational efforts and forthcoming union elec-
tions," coerced and restrained the Reedsburg and Milwau-
kee employees, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.13
6(c): The Respondent posted and/or distributed a poster
showing a locked plant gate with the legend "Vote No,
Avoid This," and various other circulars and bulletins an-
nouncing plant closures.
The Respondent concedes it mailed out to all Reedsburg
and Milwaukee eployees on the dates thereon six letters
over the signature of President Burleigh Jacobs, with posters
attached, containing the following statements:
May 8, 1972. . . . When you have considered all the
facts involved in this situation, I believe you will decide
that your best interest will not be served by having an
"outsider" represent you.
Therefore, I want to tell you the company's position.
Unions are not welcome at Grede Foundaries. We
know this is in the best interest of you and the company
May 18, 1972. Letter and poster featuring the theme
"What have I got to lose?" portraying a "UAW" and
"IM & A.W." "boss" clutching employees' assess-
ments, fines, high dues, initial fees, and political contri-
butions; and contrasting a "Grede employee" piling up
assets entitled "steady work, pensions, insurance, high
wages, vacations", and ending with the slogan "Don't
gamble with your future."
May 25, 1972. Letter describing poster as an example
of what happened to other foundry employees after
they "bought the union," and pointing out that there
12 Cf Montana Lumber Sales, Inc (Delaney & Sons Division), 185 NLRB
46, Uarco Incorporated, 169 NLRB 1153, Equitable Equipment Co, Inc, 178
NLRB 302, 309, Sahara-Tahoe Corporation, d/b/a Sahara-Tahoe Hotel, 173
NLRB 1349, Standard Coil Products, Inc, 99 NLRB 899
13 See Federation of Union Representatives v N L R B, 339 F 2d 126 (C A
2, 1964), Great Plains Steel Corp, 183 NLRB 968, The May Department
Stores Company, d/b/a Famous-Barr Company, 174 NLRB 770, Dorn 's Trans-
portation Company, Inc, 168 NLRB 457, reversed in this respect 405 F.2d 706
(CA 2, 1969)
GREDE FOUNDRIES, INC.
had been no strike at the Grede plants for 25 years. The
poster was headed "They bought the union," and fea-
tured an apparent reproduction of an article in the
AFL-CIO Milwaukee Labor Press on May 4, 1972,
appealing to the Milwaukee area labor movement for
support of a Molder's strike at Pioneer Foundry in
progress since January. The poster ended with "No
Union! No Strike! Vote No and Save Money!"
May 30, 1972. An apparent reprint of an item in the
May 8, 1972, U.S. News and World Report, headed
"Why Unions Want Your $$$$$$$$$$$ "; featuring an
article entitled "UAW's Troubles: Lay-off Strike"; and
ending, "Don't gamble with your future-Save your
dough-Vote No." The covering letter summarized the
article as establishing that unions cause strikes and
stating that figures show that during the first three
months of 1972, there were 1,110 strikes for a loss of
43,000,000 man hours and $129,000,000 in wages.
June 1, 1972 (Milwaukee). June 5, 1972 (Reedsburg).
A letter containing the following statements:
The only way to prevent a plant from closing is to
keep our customers satisfied. This cannot be done with
work stoppages, strikes, poor quality and late deliveries
which often occur when a union brings discord, distrust
and dissension to the plant.
We will do everything possible to take care of our
customers, and in dealing with the union we will deal
hard with it and deal cold with it. We will deal at arm's
length with it.
You know, or if you don't, you should know before
you vote, that we are not obligated by law to agree to
any proposals that the union makes on wages, hours,
working conditions, or what have you. If the union
wins the election, we will be obligated to negotiate with
it, but we are not obligated to agree to any proposals
or requests that it makes. We are not required to make
any concessions to it.
An economic strike could cause us to lose business.
This might cause us to have to shut down the plant. If
so, you would be without a job.
You have a lot to lose.
Don't gamble with your future.
Vote no!
The attached poster depicted a locked plant gate bear-
ing a sign, "Closed," and the further legend, "Vote
No-Avoid this-Many union plants in Wisconsin
have closed. Many workers in unions would like to get
out and can't. Promises can't replace paychecks and
security. Don't buy trouble. Vote No in the representa-
tion election."
June 6, 1972 (Milwaukee). June 8, 1972 (Reedsburg).
Letter posing the question to be decided at the Board
election as whether the cost of belonging to a union is
worth the possible loss of wages, job security, and a
promising future; stating that unions do not bring job
security, only satisfied customers do. The letter also
stated, "If the union should win the election, all they
win is their right to bargain-nothing more." The poster
43
was entitled, "Others seek what you have!" It listed
benefits offered at Grede, and stated, "Why share your
paychecks-unions are just another monthly bill to
pay-unions cost money and you pay the bill-Save
your dough Vote No." [Emphasis in original.]
There was uncontradicted testimony by employee Alden
Helms that the posters attached to the May 18, 25, and June
5 letters appeared on the bulletin boards in the employees'
lunchroom at the Reedsville plant for several days before
the election; and by Works Manager Steinhauer that they
were not posted by the Respondent. In addition, a penodi-
cal entitled "The Melting Pot" was mailed to all Reedsburg
employees June 5, 1972. The lead article, over Steinhauer's
name, stated "we are in a preferred position WITHOUT a
union, because our customers do not have to worry about
a strike," and stated that when customers inquire if the plant
has a labor contract "and if so, when is the renewal date;
or in other words, the strike date," Grede had never had to
indicate supplies might be interrupted because of a strike.
Steinhauer and employee Steven Johnson testified that
the following additional bulletins were mailed out to em-
ployees and posted in the Reedsburg plant before the eleci-
ton:
June 5, 1972. Under the heading, "Who says no
strikes?" the bulleting stated that the Pekin Foundry
Co., Pekin, Illinois, struck by Molders, was closing;
and referred to past and present strikes at South Side
Foundry Co., Peoria, Ill. by IMAW, and at Ohio Stove
Company, Portsmouth, Ohio, by Molders. The bulletin
ended with the legend, "Who makes up these lost wag-
es? Vote `No' on Friday."
June 6, 1972. Under heading "Another Molders union
foundry closes," this bulletin stated that Howard
Foundry, Chicago, represented by Molders, closed last
week; asked whether the unions needed dues to make
up losses in closed plants, and whether this was another
example of union job security.
June 9, 1972. Announcement that Peoria Malleable
Foundry Company, Peoria, Ill., whose employees were
represented by "a labor union" and had a union con-
tract, closed that day. The bulletin asked, "Is this an-
other example of union security?"
June 9, 1972. A Western Union telegraph form with a
typed message to President Jacobs from Catepillar
Tractor Company, "United Auto Workers have called
for a strike at out East Peoria plant Sunday evening.
Hold all shipments."
There were, in all, six letters, five with posters attached,
distributed to the Milwaukee employees by the Respondent
during the union campaign; 11 items were distributed to the
Reedsburg employees and most of them appeared on the
employees' bulletin board.
After careful scrutiny of this literature, I conclude that
the major themes expounded were: (1) Unions are interest-
ed primarily in the money they can get out of their mem-
bers; these and other unions have caused strikes; and
unionized plants have closed. There is no contention that
the latter statements are false. By contrast, the statements
44 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pointed out, the Respondent has been strike-free for many
years and offers many economic advantages to its employ-
ees. (2) The Respondent is determined to keep satisfied
customers, which is the only way to prevent plant closing
and have job security. An economic strike, however, could
cause loss of business which might cause the Respondent to
have to shut down. (3) The Respondent is strongly against
unions, and if one were elected, the Respondent would be
required only to bargain with it, not to make concessions,
and the Respondent would be a hard bargainer.
In this context, the "locked plant gate" poster did not
convey an implied threat that the Respondent would retali-
ate against the employees by closing the plants if the em-
ployees chose to be represented by the Union. 14
Accordingly, I conclude that the Respondent did not vio-
late Section 8(a)(1) by distributing and posting the above
antiunion propaganda. 15
6(d): The Respondent solicited employee grievances con-
cerning wages, hours, and working conditions, and prom-
ised resolution thereof.
R. J. Ward testified that when he joined the Company in
1967 it was company policy followed in all plants except
Milwaukee where Works Manager Schneider "just didn't
really buy the concept," that works managers conduct
"round-table" meetings with small groups of employees;
and that the president, executive vice president, and himself
each hold at least two round tables in each plant every year.
Ward said that some works managers hold more meetings
than others, and that the number of meetings held by the
executives varied from year to year. Ward himself held
meetings in all plants in 1971 and 1972. He held one meeting
in the Reedsburg plant in February 1972. He held more
meetings in the Milwaukee plant than in other plants, he
said, because it was located closer to his office and because
it was decided to institute "a full schedule of round tables,"
as well as the full wage policy discussed above, when Works
Manager Schneider gave notice of his intent to retire. Al-
though Ward had held one round-table meeting in the Mil-
waukee plant in December 1971, he held five between
January 28, 1972, and the date of the election; President
Jacobs held one; and Executive Vice President Woehlke
held three or four. Ward has held no round-table meetings
at the Milwaukee plant since the election there.
Ward testified that in the meetings he conducted, he
"never made anybody any promises"; he only told employ-
ees that he "would look into" any questions raised, and get
back with an answer. He did correct a number of things
involving safety and operational difficulties about which
questions were raised, he said.
Ward stated that when the "question of the union" came
up in these meetings, he advised employees "that we were
opposed to third-party interference and felt it would do
14 Cf Maremont Corp, Case 10-RC-6415, not in published Board volumes
(65 LRRM 1135), in which the Board found coercive a similar poster dis-
played by the employer contemporaneously with a picture of the employer's
plant, and in a context of implications that the employer might move to a
location with a nonunion environment
15 Summitville Tiles, Inc, supra, Rodney Heymann d/b/a Galeton Production
Company, 182 NLRB 135, 136-137, Formex Company, Division of Huyck
Corp, 160 NLRB 835 Cf Rollins Telecasting, Inc, 199 NLRB No 92,
Uniform Rental Service, Inc, 161 NLRB 187, 188, 194
nothing to enhance the work situation, that it usually
brought dissension and discord to the work force, and that
we were opposed to it."
Reedsburg Works Manager Steinhauer testified that he
customarily invites six to eight employees at a time to
round-table meetings which he conducts for the purpose of
soliciting complaints and constructive criticism and telling
employees about changes in company policy. When matters
such as safety hazards are raised, Steinhauer tells the em-
ployees he will see what can be done and he corrects the
problem.
Steinhauer presented documentary evidence that one of
his objectives for his fiscal year November 1, 1971, to Octo-
ber 31, 1972, was to hold at least 9, and preferably 12,
round-table meetings. Between the date his objectives be-
came operative on November 1, 1971, and the advent of the
Union, Steinhauer held one round-table meeting; between
then and the Board election, he held six; during the rest of
his fiscal year, three. During his prior fiscal year, November
1, 1970, to October 31, 1971, he held a total of five round-
table meetings. Steinhauer testified that he conducted more
meetings in the spring of 1972 in order to tell more employ-
ees "that we are opposed to the union." He testified that the
subject came up at most if not all of the meetings, and he
"would state our position that we were unalterably and
vehemently opposed to the union."
Employees William Demaske, Leslie Phillips, Robert
Seamans, and Robert Walter testified to attending round-
table meetings held by Steinhauer during the period from
February until the election date. They confirmed that Stein-
hauer asked what their grievances were; that matters such
as poor ventilation, poor lighting, and pay rates were
brought up; and that Steinhauer said he would look into
them, would check into the matters raised and see about
getting them righted, or would try to straighten them out
and see what he could do about them. They also testified
that Steinhauer took action on some matters brought up at
the meetings. For example, Seamans reminded Steinhauer
that he had been promised a year before that he would be
sent to school to study one of the plant machines; Stein-
hauer responded that he would get something done on it;
and within a few days, Seamans had the dates when he
would attend the school. Phillips had worked at Reedsburg
4 years, had never heard of round-table meetings before, but
attended one in April and one in May, 1972. The meeting
attended by Walter on June 7 was the only one he attended
during his 8 years at Reedsburg. Demaske had attended one
such meeting before during his 3 years of employment, but
he could not remember when.
At Milwaukee, Sylvester Harris and Clarence Rogers at-
tended the meeting held by President Jacobs on February
3, 1972. They testified that he asked for their grievances and
when Harris said it was too cold at his work station, Jacobs
said he would look into it and see if something could be
done. Harris credibly testified that Jacobs added that the
employees did not need a union as they could discuss their
gripes and grievances with him.
Albert Hankins, Lee Buggs, Arthur King, Sylvester Har-
ris, and Clarence Rogers attended meetings conducted by
Ward at the Milwaukee plant. They testified he asked about
grievances and complaints and, when Hankins voiced a
GREDE FOUNDRIES, INC. 45
complaint about the piece-work system, said he would look
into it or straighten it out. The others testified that matters
such as wage increases, insurance, temperature, smoke,
work gloves, and heavy lifts were raised, and that Ward
made similar responses. Hankins credibly testified that
Ward told the employees the Company did not want a
union there, he would hold more meetings periodically, and
the employees did not need a union to help on grievances.
I also credit King to the effect that Ward said the employees
did not need a union third party because "they would be
able to take care of it."
None of these employees had ever attended a round-table
meeting before or heard of any being held.
Frank Brendler was transferred from another Grede
plant and, as indicated above, took over as works manager
of the Milwaukee plant during the first week in June 1972.
He testified that between that time and the date of the
election on June 9 he immediately began a series of meet-
ings with practically all the employees at the plant, on an
accelerated, intensive basis, holding three or four meetings
a day for 6 or 7 days. Although Brendler was aware that an
election was imminent , he would have held the meetings
anyway, he said. He testified that the reason for the meet-
ings was that the Milwaukee plant was not running well, and
work tempo and attitude were poor. He held the meetings
in order to get acquainted with the employees and get their
feelings about company policies, operations, and working
conditions, and find out why the tempo and attitude were
poor. Brendler said that at the meetings he introduced him-
self, told the men he did not know what the problems were,
and had to find out in a hurry so he could start taking
corrective action. He pleaded with the men to give him an
opportunity to demonstrate what he could do; he felt it was
his job to establish communication between the foremen
and the men, deal with complaints and correct them, and
see that the foremen did so. He solicited their grievances
and suggestions, and took corrective action on some of
them. Brendler also said the subject of the Union and the
election came up at all these meetings, Brendler raising the
question at all but three. He told the employees, he testified,
"I'm trying to really figure out how or why it's necessary for
them to have a union to straighten these out, and if we
communicate the way we are and move ahead and do them,
that we can do them directly for them without having a third
party."
Although Brendler distinguished these meetings, which
he referred to as "communications meetings," from round-
table meetings which he had held at his previous location
once a month and has held at the Milwaukee plant every 2
week since the election, Brendler conceded that the distinc-
tion might be one of semantics only.
Solomon Harris, Alonzo Rabb,' Buggs, and Sylvester
Harris gave testimony consistent with Brendler's as to the
content of the meetings they attended: He told them he was
new and asked them to give him a chance, to tell him their
grievances, and he would try to straighten them out; and
that they did not need a third party to settle their grievances.
The above evidence clearly shows that the Respondent's
i6 Rabb obviously was mistaken about the date of the meeting he attended,
which he remembered as in May 1972
purported established policy of holding round-table meet-
ings was more honored in the breach than otherwise prior
to the advent of the Unions at thest two plants. Indeed,
management officials conceded that the program was
stepped up considerably at the time the Unions appeared on
the scene. It is also clear, despite Ward's protest that he
made no promises, that all these officials made both direct
and implied promises to, and did, rectify many of the griev-
ances voiced, some which employees had entertained for a
considerable time.
As for the Respondent's motives in stepping up the num-
ber of meetings during this period, no legitimate business
reason was advanced for doing so at the Reedsburg plant.
Indeed, Works Manager Steinhauer conceded that his rea-
son was to tell more employees that the Company was op-
posed to the Union, and according to him he did so in no
uncertain terms. Moreover, I do not credit the testimony by
Ward that the sudden avalanche of meetings which fell on
the Milwaukee plant was brought about by the impending
retirement of Works Manager Schneider. Unlike the cir-
cumstances surrounding the wage increases, found above to
be lawful, it is undisputed that Ward and Jacobs combined
their promises to rectify the grievances raised and to hold
more round table meetings with the admonition that the
employees did not need "third party interference" by a
union when they could take their problems direct to man-
agement.
There was no precedent at all for Brendler's saturation
program of meeting with practically every employee in the
Milwaukee plant within the 7 working days immediately
preceding the election there. Moreover, I do not credit his
testimony that the impending election was not the motivat-
ing force behind his conduct According to his own testimo-
ny the subject of the Union and the election came up at
every meeting, he as much as told the employees that the
reason for the meetings was to discover why they considered
it necessary to have a union and to persuade the employees
that they could get their grievances resolved without third-
party interference by bringing them directly to him if they
would give him a chance.
Accordingly, I conclude that a preponderance of the
credible evidence establishes that the Respondent increased
its solicitation of grievances and promised to, and did, recti-
fy grievances raised for the express purpose of discouraging
employees from designating a union representative, thereby
interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in
their exercise of a free choice in the elections held on June
9 and 14, 1972, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.'7
B. Reedsburg only
The following additional unfair labor practices are al-
leged in paragraph 7 of the complaint as amended to have
occurred at the Reedsburg plant.
7(a) and (h): On June 7, 1972, Plant Superintendent Brew
17 See Landis Tool Company, Division of Litton Industries v N L R B., 460
F 2d 23 (C A 3), cert denied 409 U S 915 (1972), NLRB v Tom Wood
Pontiac, Inc, 447 F 2d 383 (C A 7, 1971), Texaco Inc v NLRB, 436 F 2d
520 (C A 7, 1971), Ring Metals Company, 198 NLRB No 143 ; Reliance
Electric Company, Madison Plant Mechanical Drivers Division, 191 NLRB 44,
Raytheon Company, 188 NLRB 311
46 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Newton, an admitted supervisor and agent of the Respon-
dent, interrogated an employee about his union activities;
and interrogated an employee about the union sympathies
of other employees.
In support of this allegation, Robert Walter testified that
on the same day, June 7, on which he had earlier attended
a round-table meeting with Steinhauer, Plant Superinten-
dent Newton approached him on the job and "said he heard
I was quite strong for the union"; when Walter did not
answer, Newton professed not to care whether he was or not
and did not want to know, but said "he didn't think we
needed a third party to settle our differences , we had all
been able to talk things over between the two of us." New-
ton testified to substantially the same effect as Walter, ex-
cept that he omitted reference to a "third party," and added
that Walter complained about his long hours and Newton
explained that the Respondent was training other employ-
ees to share the overtime work.
Employee Lawrence Yeager testified that Newton ap-
proached him at his work station on an evening early in
June 1972 and "casually" asked him what he thought the
employees thought about the Union; and that Yeager did
not reply, but started talking about social security. Newton
substantially agreed with this testimony, adding that when
Yeager switched to another subject, Newton realized he did
not want to talk about the Union, so when Yeager finished
his comments on social security, Newton left him.
If Newton had engaged in only one of these incidents, it
might well have been an inadvertence from which he
learned a lesson based on the employee's lack of response.
But when he did it twice, I am persuaded it was not mere
inadvertence, but was designed to ferret out information
regarding the employees' union activity. Accordingly, I con-
clude that these statements constituted coercive interroga-
tion and violated Section 8(a)(1).
7(b), (d), and (/9: On various dates in May and June before
the election, Steinhauer interrogated an employee about his
union activities ; and on two occasions during meetings with
employees, Steinhauer threatened that the Respondent
would not sign a contract if the Union won the election.
In support of these allegations, employee Helms testified
that on the Sunday evening before the election, Steinhauer
came over to his work station and asked him, in the presence
of the leadman, what Helms thought the outcome of the
election would be.
Employee Phillips testified, that at the round-table meet-
ing he along with five to seven other employees attended
some time in May, Steinhauer "kind of wondered about
what the union activity was, if we'd heard anything about
the union." Steinhauer did not deny this testimony by Helm
and Phillips.
Robert Walter testified that at a June 7 round-table meet-
ing attended by 10 employees, Steinhauer said, in reference
to the Union, that Bill Grede never had signed a contract
and never would. Steinhauer said he told the employees at
this round-table that Grede "had lost elections but had
never signed a contract."
I credit Helms and Phillips whose testimony was unde-
med, and Walter as against Steinhauer , in these instances.
Although I find that a statement attributed to Steinhauer by
Seamans, that Grede had a union in another plant but never
signed a contract, was not coercive, I find that those attn-
buted by these other employees constituted coercive inter-
rogation and an implied threat that the Respondent would
not bargain in good faith even if the Union won the election,
and I conclude that they were violative of Section 8(a)(1).
7(g): An admitted supervisor and agent, Iron-Pouring
Foreman Arthur Swenink, on February 1, 1972, threatened
an employee with reprisal if he did not cease talking about
the Union.
Employee Demaske testified that in late January or early
February 1972, near the beginning of his shift, he had
worked 5 or 10 minutes pouring a ladle of iron and then left
his ladle to talk and kid around with a couple of employees
while waiting for more iron to come up on deck as he does
every once in a while, when Foreman Swenink apporached
him and said, "OK, I don't want to hear anymore talk about
the union, I'm warning you." Demaske replied that he had
not said a word about the Union. When Demaske asked
Swenink 10 or 15 minutes later whether someone was trying
to get him fired, Swenink replied, "nobody's after your job."
Swenink's version was similar to Demaske's, except that
Swenink added that having been informed previously that
Demaske was pushing the Union, he naturally assumed,
when he saw Demaske going down the deck talking to dif-
ferent individuals, that that was what he was doing. So
Swenink "warned him to stop talking about the union for
his own good. He was on the job and I didn't feel that that
was the place for it." When Demaske said he had not been
talking about the Union, Swenink told him, "Fine , Bill, if
that is the case, then we'll drop the subject right here." On
cross-examination of Swenink, the following colloquy took
place.
Q. Now, was your objection, Mr. Swenink, that he
was talking about the union, or that he was away from
his job?
A. More or less away from his job.
Q. Well, I think you testified that you told him to
stop talking about the union for his own good?
A. I did.
Q. He said yes, he hadn't been talking about it, and
you said if you haven't been talking about it, that's
fine?
A. Right.
Q. Well, did you say, "Mr. Demaske, I still want you
to be at your job"?
A. No.
It is clear from the above testimony, including the entire
testimony of Swenink himself, that Swenink was motivated,
in remonstrating with Demaske, solely with preventing De-
maske from engaging in prounion activity during his down-
time. Thus, Swenink did not tell Demaske he should have
been working and, in any event, there was no work for
Demaske to perform at the time; moreover, when Demaske
denied that the Union was the subject of his conversations,
Swenink immediately dropped the subject even though De-
maske did not, as far as the record shows, return to work.
I accordingly conclude that Swenink's "warning" restrained
Demaske in the exercise of his right to engage in union
GREDE FOUNDRIES, INC.
activity during his nonwork time, and therefore violated
Section 8(a)(1).18
7(c): Lee Bureau, personnel manager and admitted agent
of the Respondent, on May 20, 1972, engaged in surveil-
lance of union activities at a union meeting.
The following evidence is undisputed: UAW Representa-
tive Christ Gerber, by notices mailed May 16, 1972, sum-
moned the 12-member in-plant organization committee to
a meeting at 8 p.m., May 20, 1972, in room 21 of the Motel
Reedsburg; 8 to 12 attended. Personnel Manager Bureau's
car was parked close by in the vicinity of room 21 when the
employees arrived, and was visible from the room. The car
was gone when the meeting ended.
There is no evidence that any of the employees saw Bu-
reau before or during the meeting, and two employees who
attended (Robert Walter and Steven Johnson) testified they
did not see Bureau at all that evening. Alden Helms testified
that as he was getting into his car to leave the motel grounds,
he observed Bureau's car drive into, through, and out of the
motel grounds. On direct examination, Helms made no ref-
erence to who was driving Bureau's car; on cross-examina-
tion he indicated that Bureau was driving. Although the
driver's side was away from him, Helms stated, "to the best
of knowledge, I was positive it was Mr. Bureau"; "As close
as I could tell, it was Mr. Lee Bureau."
Bureau could not remember whether or not he was at the
Motel Reedsburg that night, although he said he could have
been in the vicinity. At that time a close friend and his
family were living in a house next door to the motel, Bureau
visited them frequently, and often parked his car at the spot
where the employees saw it. He also testified that his friend
sometimes borrowed his car. Bureau said he did not know
about the committee meeting of May 20, and never saw any
plant employees or Gerber at the motel.
I had the distinct impression that Helms could not posi-
tively identify Bureau as the driver of the car which passed
through the motel grounds after the meeting was over. I
therefore find that none of the employees saw Bureau on the
evening of this meeting. I credit Bureau in this matter, and
find that he did not know about the committee meeting, that
his car was parked at the motel for reasons unrelated to the
meeting, and I find that Bureau had no intention of putting
the meeting under surveillance or creating the impression
that he was doing so. The presence of his car was therefore
mere happenstance, and more than that is required to estab-
lish a violation of the Act. As this allegation is not supported
by a preponderance of the evidence, I shall recommend that
it be dismissed.19
7(e): At a meeting with employees at the Reedsburg plant
on June 12, 1972, William Grede threatened that the Re-
spondent would not sign a contract with the Union even if
it won the election.
is Contrary to the Respondent 's contention , I find that this allegation,
added to the complaint over the Respondent 's objection at the opening of
the hearing , is not barred by Section 10(b) The charge in the Reedsburg case
(30-CA-2024), alleged that the Respondent , by the specific conduct referred
to therein , violated Section 8(a)( 1), (3), and (5), and by "these and other acts,"
interfered with, restrained , and coerced employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by Section 7. In these circumstances , I find that the charge was
broad enough to include this conduct , which occurred less than 6 months
before the charge was filed
19 Textron, Inc (Telon Division ), 199 NLRB No 17.
47
Grede made two speeches at Reedsburg that day. One
was made in the morning to the first shift employees and the
General Counsel concedes that no threat was made in that
speech 20
In support of the allegation that Grede threatened not to
sign a contract in his afternoon speech to the second and
third shift employees, the General Counsel presented the
following testimony by employees who attended the af-
ternoon meeting.
Employee Helms testified, on direct examination, that
Grede told the employees, "Just remember in 26 years we've
never signed a contract yet and we never will." On cross-
examination , Helms could not recall whether he included
the phrase, "and we never will," in the affidavit he gave a
Board agent on July 5, 1972; he affirmed, however, that
Grede made the statement, asserting that his recollection
was "probably better today" than it was when he gave the
affidavit.
Robert Seamans testified that Grede
mentioned this thing that I had heard from Woody
about the fact that he had had a union in one of his
plants and they drew up a contract but he wouldn't sign
it because it didn't meet what he wanted.
Employee Walter testified that Grede told the employees,
"if the union got in, he would have to sit down and bargain
with them, but he would not have to sign a contract."
Steven Johnson stated that Grede said, "If the union
election went through, all we'd receive is the right to bar-
gain, that's all you received. I've never sat down and signed
a contract before and I don't think I'm going to start now."
On cross-examination, Johnson testified that Grede said
"he wouldn't bargain with the union"; that Johnson asked
him "if it wasn 't law that he had to bargain"; and that Grede
replied, "it's my company and I'll do with it as I see fit."
I find that the above statements testified to by Seamans
and Walter were not unlawful threats even if Grede made
the statements . I discredit Johnson's testimony. He was so
inconsistent about what Grede said about his obligation to
bargain that I consider him unreliable as to what Grede said
about not signing a contract. Helms struck me as unsure of
himself when testifying on his matter, as opposed to matters
on which I have credited him, and as he was unsupported
except for the differently worded testimony by Johnson
which I have in any event not credited, I descredit Helms
here also.
Although not necessary to resolution of this issue, I find
that a tape recording was made of Grede's speech, and that
it is the most reliable evidence of what Grede said. The tape,
which was played at the hearing, contains none of the above
statements attributed to Grede, as shown by the transcrip-
tion thereof received in evidence upon agreement that it
20 At the hearing , the Respondent's objection to testimony regarding the
contents of speechs made by Grede at the Milwaukee plant was sustained.
The testimony, of which the General Counsel was permitted to make an offer
of proof on the record, was offered by the General Counsel not to establish
additional violations of the Act but only as "relevant background material"
to show the Respondent' s animus . The evidence was excluded as having
insufficient probative value to justify the undue consumption of time re-
quired in litigating whether or not Grede in fact made the statements attribut-
ed to him in the offer of proof I find the General Counsel's exception to that
ruling without merit , and I adhere to it Uniform Rules of Evidence, approved
August 28, 1953, rule 45
48 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
accurately reflects what is on the tape, and therefore con-
firms my conclusion that Grede did not threaten not to sign
a contract even if the Union won the election.
The General Counsel contends that the tape is inadmissa-
ble on two grounds.
First, he asserts that there is no evidence that the tape
which was played at the hearing was the same tape as the
one Personnel Director Bureau testified he made of this
speech. However, I am satisfied, based on Bureau's identifi-
cation, that the tape is one and the same.
Second, the General Counsel suggests that the tape was
altered by deleting certain statements. In support of this
contention, the General Counsel relies on the testimony of
Helms, Seamans, Walter, and Johnson, given before the
tape was played, that Grede made the above, and other,
statements which are not on the tape. In addition, the Gen-
eral Counsel recalled Walter and Helms to the stand after
they listened to the tape played in the hearing room, and
they testified that certain statements, not including the ones
set forth above alleged to be unlawful, had been deleted
from the tape.
On the other hand, Works Manager Steinhauer and Plant
Superintendent Newton testified that the tape, which they
also heard in the hearing room, accurately reflects without
omission the speech, which they heard Grede make.
After careful study of the testimony given by the General
Counsel's witnesses and review of the transcription, I am
convinced that the employee witnesses were mistaken.
Thus, some of the statements not alleged to be unlawful
which they testified were made by Grede but were not on
the tape were, in fact, on it, some were subsequently con-
ceded to have been made at a different meeting held after
the election; and some statements, including those testified
to by Seamans and Walter above, represented no-doubt
unintentional distorted memories made up of mismatched
things said by Grede, by employees during the question and
answer period, and by others on different occasions.
In these circumstances, I credit Steinhauer and Newton
that there were no omissions or deletions from the tape and
that it accurately reflects what Grede said in his speech. As
the tape recording was thus properly identified and authen-
ticated, it was admissible in evidence, and is the best proof
of the words spoken zl As such, it provides substantial, pro-
bative support from my recommendation that this allega-
tion of the complaint be dismissed.22
III THE OBJECTIONS TO THE REEDSBURG ELECTION
The conduct found above to be violative of Section
8(a)(1) which occurred between the date, April 17, 1972,
21 See N L R B v Tex-Tan, Inc, 318 F 2d 472 (C A 5, 1963) Although, as
the General Counsel argues, the Board has spoken of the "mechanical possi-
bility" of altering tapes, it has not excluded such evidence on a per se basis
Fontaine Truck Equipment Company, 193 NLRB 190, Walton Manufacturing
Company, 124 NLRB 1331, enfd in part 286 F 2d 26 (C A 5, 1961) Nor has
the Board to my knowledge expressed disagreement with the rule stated by
the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Tex-Tan, which I find is applica-
ble in this case See also Hendrix Manufacturing Company, Inc v N L R B,
321 F 2d 100 (CA 5, 1963)
221 find no merit in the General Counsel's contention that additional
violations of the Act, not alleged in the amended complaint, should be found,
as those issues were not fully litigated
when the petition was filed, and the date, June 14, 1972,
when the election was held in Case 30-RC-1722 at the
Reedsburg plant, consisted of announcing and withholding
of insurance benefits extended to employees of other plants;
conducting an increased number of round-table meetings to
solicit, promise to rectify, and to rectify employee griev-
ances; coercively interrogating employees; and threatening
never to sign a contract. I find that this conduct at Reeds-
burg fell within the scope Objections 3 and 6, and that those
objections were sustained. The remaining objections should
be overruled. I further find that the aforesaid unlawful con-
duct interfered with the employees' free choice of represen-
tatives and was of a sufficiently substantial nature to affect
the results of the election and to require that the election be
set aside and a new election held.23
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that the Respon-
dent be ordered to cease and desist therefrom, and from like
or related unfair labor practices. I shall also recommend
that the Respondent take the affirmative action provided
for in the recommended Order, below, which I find neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act, including reim-
bursement of Milwaukee and Reedsburg employees for the
health insurance premiums they paid between May 21,
1972, and the date the Respondent picked up the premiums
for the employees at these two plants, plus interest at 6
percent per annum.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER24
The Respondent, Grede Foundries, Inc., its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Announcing the withholding of health insurance ben-
efits, or withholding such benefits, granted to other employ-
ees, because of union organizational efforts and
forthcoming Board elections.
(b) Increasing the number of grievance meetings to dis-
courage employees from designating a union representative.
(c) Coercively interrogating employees about their union
activities and sympathies, or those of other employees.
(d) Threatening to refuse to bargain in good faith even
if a union becomes the employees' representative.
(e) Warning employees not to talk about the Union dur-
ing their nonwork time.
23 There is no merit in the Respondent's contention that no new election
should be held because "There was a tainted solicitation of cards by the
union in the first instance " Aside from other considerations, the Union
polled more votes in the election than the number of cards required to justify
holding an election
24 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by 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, be adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes
GREDE FOUNDRIES, INC.
(f) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces-
sary to effectuate the purposes of the Act:
(a) Reimburse its Reedsburg and Milwaukee Steel em-
ployees for health insurance premiums they paid as set forth
in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Post at its Reedsburg and Milwaukee Steel plants,
copies of the attached appropriate notices.25 Copies of said
notices, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 30, after being duly signed by the Respondent's
authorized representatives, shall be posted by the Respon-
dent immediatley 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 the
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 30, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Order,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not
found herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election conducted in Case
30-RC-1722 June 14, 1972, among the Reedsburg employ-
ees in the appropriate unit be set aside and that a new
election be conducted at such time as the Regional Director
deems appropriate.
25 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT announce the withholding of insurance
benefits, or withhold such benefits, granted to other
employees, because of union organizational efforts or
forthcoming Board elections.
WE WILL NOT increase the number of round-table
meetings to discourage employees from designating a
union representative.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of
their rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.
WE WILL reimburse our Milwaukee Steel employees
for health insurance premiums they paid between May
21 and June 19, 1972, with interest at 6 percent.
49
GREDE FOUNDRIES, INC (MIL-
WAUKEE)
(Employer)
Dated By
(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, Commerce Building, 2d Floor, 744
North 4th Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203, Telephone
414-224-3861.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT announce the withholding of insurance
benefits, or withhold such benefits, granted to other
employees, because of union organizational efforts or
forthcoming Board elections.
WE WILL NOT increase the number of round-table
meetings to discourage employees from designating a
union representative.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate employees about
their union activities or sympathies, or those of others.
WE WILL NOT threaten to refuse to bargain in good
faith even if a union becomes the employees' represen-
tative.
WE WILL NOT warn employees not to talk about a
union , during their nonwork time.
WE WILL NOT In any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of
their rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.
WE WILL reimburse our Reedsburg employees for the
health insurance premiums they paid between May 21
and July 10, 1972, with interest at 6 percent.
GREDE FOUNDRIES, INC
(REEDSBURG)
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
50 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, ed to the Board's Office, Commerce Building, 2d Floor, 744
or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning North 4th Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203, Telephone
this notice or compliance with its provisions may be direct- 414-224-3861.