Hoffman-Taff, Inc.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsFeb 28, 1962135 N.L.R.B. 1319 (N.L.R.B. 1962) Copy Citation HOFFMAN-TAFF, INC. 1319 Hoffman-Taff, Inc. and International Chemical Workers Union, AFL-CIO. Case No. 17-CA-1802. February 28, 1962 DECISION AND ORDER On December 19, 1961, Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, together with a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Brown]. The Board has reviewed the findings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner. ORDER The Board adopts the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner with the modifications of provisions 2(b) and (c) in accord with foot- notes 7 and 8 of said Recommended Order. The Respondent requested the Board to overrule the Trial Examiner 's credibility find- ings . However, it is established Board policy not to overrule a Trial Examiner 's credibility findings unless they are clearly erroneous Such a conclusion is not warranted here. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F. 2d 362 (CA. 3). In the absence of exceptions, and without necessarily approving, we adopt pro forma the Trial Examiner 's finding that Respondent did not violate Section 8 ( a) (1) of the Act in certain respects including the statement by Area Supervisor Watkins " that he was disappointed in some of the guys for feeling that way about one (the Union), that he didn't want anything to do with it, and he didn 't want anyone working for him that did " In adopting the finding that Respondent violated Section 8 ( a)(3) and (1) of the Act by withdrawing employee privileges, we do not rely upon or adopt the Trial Examiner's statement relating to the course Respondent could have taken in order effectively to main- tain production during the preelection period such as recognizing the Union upon the basis of its claim or a card check However, we do find, for the other reasons stated by the Trial Examiner , that the curtailment of privileges was for the purpose of discouraging union membership , activity, and sympathy among the employees , rather than for the pur- pose of maintaining production, and adopt his recommended order . See Indianapolis Wire-Bound Box Company, d / b/a Cleveland Veneer Company, 89 NLRB 617 INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding, with all parties represented , was heard before Alba B. Martin, the duly designated Trial Examiner , in Springfield , Missouri , on October 4 and 5, 135 NLRB No. 135. 1320 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1961, on complaint of the General Counsel and answer of Hoffman-Taff, Inc., the Respondent, sometimes referred to herein as the Company. The issues litigated -were whether Respondent, through the activities of a number of its supervisors in- ,cluding its director of industrial relations and its president, committed numerous alleged threats and interrogations and promises of benefit in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and whether in May 1961, shortly after Respondent received a demand for recognition from the Union, Respondent withdrew certain privileges the employees had previously enjoyed, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Oral argument was waived, and the General Counsel and Respondent filed briefs which have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent, Hoffman-Taff, Inc., a Missouri corporation with its principal places .of business at Springfield and Verona, Missouri, is engaged in the manufacture of chemicals and chemical products. Only Respondent's Springfield, Missouri, place •of business (herein called the plant) is involved in this proceeding. Respondent annually ships from the plant to destinations outside of Missouri chemicals and -chemical products valued in excess of $50,000. The complaint alleged, Respondent admitted, and I find, that at all times material herein Respondent has been and is an ,employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Chemical Workers Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is, and at all times material herein has been , a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interrogations, threats, and promises 1. Employee Harold Highfill testified that in his hiring interview with Area Supervisor L. D. Brown in February 1961, Brown "asked me how I felt about the union and I said I didn't want anything to do with it." Brown denied asking Highfill how he felt about unions and testified that when Highfill told him that where he last worked there was a union, Brown replied that "we had no union in our shop, we did -not have a union shop." In his affidavit to a Board agent in May 1961 Highfill did not state that in his employment interview Brown interrogated him as to how he felt about a union. To be noted is that Highfill quoted Brown as referring to "the" union, at a time when the record did not show any union to have been actively soliciting adherents among Respondent's employees. In all these circumstances I credit Brown's denial and find thatBrown did not interrogate Highfill concerning his feelings about a union. 2. In the plant in April or May 1961, full-time Relief Supervisor Charles Harter (who was stipulated to be a supervisor within the meaning of the Act) asked two employees what they thought they would gain by the Union, and according to the testimony of employee Earl Mowry, "told us if we had a union or if we voted a union in we would loose all of our benefits we had now like our shoe allowance and rate of pay we have now and vacation time, and we would have to negotiate from scratch for anything that we would get." Harter's version was that be and the em- ployees were discussing what would happen if the Union came into the plant "and I told them the way I understood it was . . . all the benefits the employees then had would have to be negotiated for at the bargaining table." He admitted that he used the words "begin from scratch." Harter testified that at this time he was "pretty sure" that Mowry and the other employee present, Stiles, were union advocates. Mowry testified, and Harter did not deny, that a few days later Harter told the employees that he had checked the law books and that he was right, that they would loose their benefits As only the Company could effectuate the loss of existing wages, hours, and conditions of employment, I find and hold that by Harter's remarks Respondent expressly or impliedly threatened employees that Respondent would change existing wages, hours, and conditions of employment if the Union ,became their bargaining agent. By this threat and by Harter's undenied interrogation of the employees at the beginning of his conversation with them given above, Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the rights guaranteed in Section 7, Respondent thereby violating Section 8 (a),(1) of the Act. HOFFMAN-TAFF, INC. 1321 3. In individual conversations in April 1961 with employees Gerald Owens and James H. Stiles, Area Supervisor Watkins after discussing the individual employees' personal problems, told Owens, according to Owens' credited testimony, that "he was disappointed in some of the guys for feeling that way about one [a union], that he didn't want anything to do with it, and he didn't want anyone working for him that did." According to the credited testimony of Stiles, Watkins "told me he wouldn't buy the Union, that he didn' t see why we wanted hoodlums running our company." Watkins denied any discussion of the Union with Owens on this occasion, but did not deny the remarks attributed to him by Stiles. On the entire record I credit Owens and Stiles. Watkins' remarks in these two conversations disclosed Watkins' and Re- spondent's attitude toward the Union, but they were an expression of views, argu- ments, or opinions not containing any threats or promises of benefit, and were not therefore a violation of the Act. 4. During the month or two prior to the election, which was held August 23 and 24, 1961,1 Director of Industrial Relations Eddie Bass called individually into his office some 75 2 employees and talked to them concerning, among other things, the Union. Three employees and Bass testified concerning these interviews. According to the credited testimony of employee Lewis William Lish, a strong union advocate who nevertheless by his demeanor impressed me as a credible witness, Bass told him that the Union could do the employees no good, that the Company could shut its gates any time it wanted to, and that the Union 's only power was to strike and if there was a strike the Company could close its gates and hire new employees and the strikers would be out of jobs. Employee Tyrel Hart, Jr., testified that Bass asked him what the trouble was in the plant that the men wanted a union. ( Bass did not deny this interrogation ) Bass also told Hart that the Union could do the employees no good, that its only power was to strike, and that a strike would put everybody out of work. He said that all the Union wanted was the employees' dues money and that the Union felt that the employees were like cattle. Employee Gerald Owens credibly testified that Bass told him also that the Union could do them no good, that if there was a strike the Company could hire replacements. Bass testified that on the subject of the Union he told all 75 of the employees about the same thing. This is highly unlikely inasmuch as he was not giving a speech but was having individual conversations with each of the employees. In substance Bass admitted that he told Lish and the other employees that the Company felt that the Union had nothing to offer the employees. In substance Bass admitted telling the employees that if there was a strike the Company could replace the strikers and the strikers would be out of jobs for good; but Bass stated in substance that in refer- ring to a strike he always referred to an economic strike. As has been noted above Lish, Hart, and Owens did not quote Bass as referring to only an economic strike. On the entire record I find, contrary to Bass' testimony, that Bass did not limit his, strike references to an economic strike. Further, the record contained no suggestion that at this time a possible strike, economic or otherwise, was being discussed among the employees or rumored in the plant, and it appears beyond a doubt that Bass, in referring to a strike in these interviews, timed as they were a few weeks before the election, was intentionally threatening the employees with loss of their jobs rather than merely abstractly instructing them in consequences of economic strikes. Upon the above considerations and the entire record considered as a whole, I find that in these interviews Bass interrogated employees as to why they wanted a union in the plant and threatened them with loss of their jobs if there was a strike, Respondent thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. During a conversation on July 30, 1961, in his office, Production Manager William Zay told employee Lish, according to the latter's uncontradicted and credited testimony, "some of you boys want to play it straight and narrow . . . that is the way it is going to be after that election is over with." On the entire record considered as a whole I find that this remark amounted to a threat of reprisal against those employees who were active in or sympathetic toward the Union, Re- spondent thereby further violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 6. In substance the complaint alleged that in May 1961, Area Supervisor Brown promised Lish a promotion if the Union did not "get into" the plant. In February when only two employees worked in Lish's building, Brown told' Lish that if and when a third operator was hired, Lish would be made a leadman., i Case No 17-RC-3554 (not published in NLRB volumes) of which 3 take official notice.. The Union lost 'the election Ninety-one employees were eligible to vote in the election. 1322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Lish told Brown that he would not take a leadman's job for less than 25 cents an hour raise. In early May, Brown told Lish that they were putting on the third operator and that Lish would be made a leadman. Brown added, according to the credited testi- mony of Lish (which Brown denied), that if the Union "came in" there was no telling what would happen under the union contract; but that if the Union did not "come in" Lish would be the leadman. Lish said again that he would not take the leadman's job for less than 25 cents an hou,r raise. Lish testified that in May he .turned down the job of leadman. On August 24, after it was known that the Union had lost the election, Lish told 'Brown and Zay in Zay's office that he was there to accept the leadman's job which Brown had promised him if the Union did not go through. Brown said Lish no longer was qualified for the job. Zay said that the Company would take care of the matter. Lish was not thereafter made a leadman. On the above evidence I believe and hold that the proof did not sustain a finding that in May, Brown promised Lish a promotion if the Union did not win the elec- tion. The proof was, rather, that in May, Brown actually offered and Lish declined the leadman's job earlier mentioned to him in February, the third man having in the meantime been hired; and during the May conversation Brown added, without any threat, that he did not know what the situation as to leadmen would be under a union •contract. The complaint did not allege that Lish was deprived of the leadman's job to dis- courage membership in the Union in violation of either Section 8(a)(3) or (1), nor was the issue fully litigated. In any case it appears that the Company and Lish never reached a meeting of the minds on what Lish would be paid as a leadman, and it appears that at the Company's price Lish turned the job down. 7. About August 28, 1961, a few days after the August 23-24 election which the Union had lost, employee Lish and Respondent's president, Walter H. Hoffman, had a long conversation at a public place in Springfield where they accidentally met after their working day and remained for about 21/2 hours talking. In his testimony Hoffman said that the election was over and that he would characterize his con- versation with Lish as a sort of a bull session or shooting-the-breeze, a discussion of what had gone on the previous couple of months. According to the credited testimony of Lish, the conversation began with Lish's refusal to let Hoffman buy -him a beer and Hoffman's thereupon calling Lish "stubborn." Then Hoffman asked how Lish liked the results of the election, Lish replying that as the Union had lost he did not like it. Then Hoffman said, "What can a union do for you? The Union can't do you any good. I can shut the plant down any time I want to. I can lock the gate, close it up." Then Hoffman asked Lish about the sign on the latter's car. The sign on Lish's car read "Vote for the union for a better and fuller life." To Hoffman's question Lish replied "Well, it is a good sign, it is the gospel truth on there. It means just what it says." When Lish explained that the Union meant individual rights and job security Hoffman replied in substance that the employees would not have any job security with the Union. He said, according to Lish's credited testimony, "I can fire you anytime I want. I could have fired you over the last two years or more if I wanted to, and I can now, and I will if you don't stop this damn crazy union organization and think of yourself. Why don't you smarten up? Go ahead, report me to the NLRB. I don't care, I will just call you a damn liar. It is just your word against mine, you can't prove a damn thing." I said, "Yes, that is what I know. That is the reason I would like to get the Union. Then you can't do that." And he said "For pete sakes, why don't you smarten up a bit and think of yourself. You are always wanting to crusade for other people and getting involved in other people's affairs of what they do." Then Lish mentioned that 14 3 employees had been discharged since he had worked there and Lish would like to have a union so that he would not be the 15th. Hoff- man asked Lish what it would take to make him happy, whether a 25-cent an hour increase would make him satisfied. Lish asked how he would know he would not be 3In an earlier proceeding against Respondent, the Board held that one employee had been discriminatorily discharged, another discriminatorily transferred from one shift to another; and that President Hoffman, then Foreman Zay, and the then director of pro- duction , had violated the Act by various threats of reprisals, by surveillance and creating the impression of surveillance, and by granting a wage increase to discourage concerted activities . 123 NLRB 1462 This Board order was enforced except for the case of the discharged employee N.LR.B v. Hoffman-Taff, Inc, 276 F. 2d 193 (C.A. 8). HOFFMAN-TAFF, INC. 1323 :fired even if he took the quarter increase . Hoffman replied that he would not. Lish replied, "That is why I want a union. Then I know you couldn't." During the discussion Hoffman said, "Well, I will hang you any time I want. I can hang you just as high as I want to. You go ahead and report me to the NLRB. You can't prove a damn thing. I can do it just as legal a setup. And you won't be able to prove a thing." During the discussion Hoffman said that if the Union got in he would lock the gates and shut the plant, and the thing that bothered him about doing that was that the families of those who lost their jobs would suffer so. In his testimony Hoffman denied that during this discussion he threatened to fire Lish but admitted that he told Lish the latter could be fired for ample cause whether or not he was for or against the Union. Hoffman denied asking why Lish did not smarten up or accusing Lish of always getting involved in other people's affairs. Hoffman testified that he "kidded" Lish about the latter's having turned down a lead- man's job because the Company would not agree to give him a 25-cent raise, but Hoffman denied offering Lish a 25-cent raise during this discussion if Lish would _get out of the Union. Hoffman denied saying that he could hang Lish anytime he wanted to but he admitted, in substance, saying that if there was a strike the plant could be closed down. In the light of the hostility toward the Union shown on this record by Respond- ent's supervisory hierarchy leading up to the president and chief executive officer of the corporation, it appears highly likely to me that the other officers and supervisors were reflecting a hostility from the top down. In view of this, as Lish impressed me as a credible witness and as his version of his discussion with President Hoffman rang true under the circumstances under which it took place, I credit Lish's testimony and find that during this conversation Respondent, through its president, threatened Lish with possible discharge because of his union activities and threatened to close the plant if the Union got into the plant, Respondent thereby interfering with, re- straining, and coercing employees in the rights guaranteed in Section 7, Respondent thereby violating Section 8 (a)( 1 ) of the Act. B. Withdrawal of privileges On May 3, 1961, Respondent received from the Union a letter dated May 1, stat- ing that the Union represented a majority of Respondent's production and mainte- nance employees at Respondent's Springfield and Verona plants, and demanding recognition. On May 8, Respondent replied, refusing recognition "prior to certifi- cation by proper governmental authorities." On May 8, at a meeting of all super- visors, Director of Industrial Relations Eddie Bass read the Union's letter and then told the supervisors, in substance, to keep production up during the coming union campaign. He did not instruct them on how they were to accomplish this. The supervisors then discussed the situation among themselves and decided to withdraw from the employees certain privileges the employees then enjoyed: (a) In addi- tion to their two regular smoke breaks before and after lunch, employees were permitted to smoke in their supervisor's office one at a time but were not supposed to congregate there; (b) for their personal convenience employees were permitted on occasion, with the approval of the supervisor, to trade shifts; (c) employees who missed a few hours' work on occasion were permitted to make up those hours later the same day or on another day; and (d) on Saturdays, for the convenience of the employees, Respondent permitted the shifts to start and end several hours earlier than they usually did. During the next few days the supervisors held meetings of the employees under them-each supervisor had about 15 to 25 employees under him-and informed the employees that these privileges were being withdrawn. In substance the Gen- ,eral Counsel contended that the withdrawal of these privileges was a change in working conditions made to discourage membership and activity in the Union. In announcing the changes to two of the employees under him who worked in a separate building, Area Supervisor L. D. Brown told them that production must be kept up. He also told them, according to the credible and credited testimony of employee Lish, in substance, that if the Union came in and the employees worked under a union contract, these privileges would not be permitted and that the em- ployees might as well get accustomed to the changes now. According to the credible and credited testimony of employee Highfill, Brown said also in substance that if the employees wanted to "go by the book" 4 the Company would go by it, 6 Supervisor Brown denied making any reference to going "by the book" but did not specifically deny the other statements attributed to him in this paragraph He testified be told the employees "that we were going back to being a little bit more on the ball than we had been in the past." 1324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and that "until this thing is settled one way or the other-[obviously referring to the issue of union representation of the employees] -these privileges would be taken away." Six employees and Area Supervisor Roderick Friedhofen testified concerning what Friedhofen told the morning shift of his employees and the afternoon shift of his employees at two separate meetings. On the basis of all their testimony I find that Friedhofen expressed the same ideas to both meetings. According to the credible and credited testimony of the employees, Friedhofen told them in substance that a union was trying to get into the Company, that there had been loss of production during the earlier union campaign,5 that he was not going to stand for any loss of production during this union campaign, that he was withdrawing the above- mentioned privileges which they were then enjoying, that there would be absolutely no congregating and talking during working hours and that he would see that anybody caught doing so would be discharged, that apparently the employees wanted to go by the book, and that being so, the Company would go by the book. He also said in substance that he would assume full responsibility for what he was saying before the National Labor Relations Board. According to the credible and credited testimony of two employees, Earl Mowry and Gerald Owens, in announcing the withdrawal of the privileges Area Super- visor Watkins told his employees in substance that the privileges were being with- drawn until the question of union representation of the employees was settled one way or the other. Watkins testified that he told the employees that the changes were "due to production reasons." Through the testimony of Brown, Friedhofen, and Watkins, Respondent contended in substance that the withdrawal of the privileges was motivated solely by Respond- ent's desire to maintain production during the period between the announcement of the withdrawal and the representation election. Respondent could have prevented any preelection campaign and any loss of production during it by recognizing the Union upon the basis of its claim or upon a check of the Union's authorization cards. Had Respondent been motivated at this time solely by a desire to avoid a drop in production, it could have avoided it by not insisting upon a certification. Its insistence upon a certification and consequent election despite the drop in pro- duction during the earlier campaign strongly suggested that in curtailing the privileges, Respondent was not primarily motivated by a desire to maintain production. Brown and Friedhofen attributed the drop in production during the earlier pre- election campaign primarily to "congregating" by the employees. President Hoff- man attributed it to congregating, talking, and "horseplay." Curtailing extra smoke breaks in May 1961 and any congregating that accompanied them, was thus ex- plainable as motivated against loss of production. This history did not explain, however, in terms of antiproduction-loss-motivation, the curtailment in May 1961 of trading shifts, making up lost time, and advancing shift hours on Saturdays. Brown testified that he told his employees that on some jobs it cost production to trade shifts. Respondent did not explain what jobs or how trading shifts affected production on those jobs. Presumably, had Respondent's motivation been solely the maintenance of production, Brown would have curtailed trading shifts on those jobs where production would be adversely affected and would have continued per- mitting the trading of shifts on all other jobs. His failure to make this distinction strongly suggested that his motivation was not solely the maintenance of production. In substance Area Supervisor Watkins testified that he curtailed the privileges of his men in order to maintain production during the campaign and to solve,a 4-month- old conflict between the shifts, one shift complaining that the previous shift left work for it which the previous shift should have performed. Watkins was unable to explain how the curtailing of the privileges was designed to eliminate the conflict between the shifts-other than that the employees reacted to the withdrawal of privileges by thereafter making fewer complaints. This was scarcely a persuasive explanation in view of the fact that had the changes and privileges been made to discourage membership in the Union, with consequent restraint and intimidation of the employees, their reaction would in all likelihood have been the same. As has been seen above, the curtailment of the privileges occurred within a few days after Respondent received the Union's demand for recognition. In announcing the curtailment Supervisor Brown told the employees that they would not have the privileges under a union contract, they might as well get accustomed to the changes now, and that the Company would go "by the book." Supervisor Friedhofen also mentioned going "by the book." Supervisor Watkins said that the privileges would 5 Several years before another union tried and failed to become the exclusive bargaining agent of the employees. HOFFMAN-TAFF, INC. 1325 be withdrawn until the question of union representation was settled. In these cir- cumstances, upon the considerations above, and upon the entire record considered as a whole, it appears to me and I find, that in curtailing the privileges Respondent's purpose in part was to discourage union membership, activity, and sympathy among the employees, Respondent thereby violating Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Informing the employees that the Company would go "by the book" was an implied threat that the Company would be more strict with the employees during the union campaign than it had been before and was therefore interference with, restraint, and coercion of employees in the rights guaranteed in Section 7, Respondent thereby independently violating Section 8 (a),(1). IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec- tion with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in the unfair labor practices set forth above, I recommend that it cease and desist therefrom, and that it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. As has been found above, in curtailing the privileges Respondent's purpose in part was to discourage union membership, activity, and sympathy among the employees. Respondent had the further purpose of keeping up production during the union preelection campaign. Now the election and its aftermath is over,6 and Respondent on its own volition has already-about 2 weeks before the hearing herein- restored the earlier smoke privileges to some of the employees. As the election is over, Respondent has no further need of curtailing the privileges during the pre- election campaign period which is past. It is appropriate in remedying the unfair labor practices that at this time Respondent restore to all the employees all the privileges withdrawn from them in May 1961. The violations of the Act committed by Respondent are persuasively related to other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act, and the danger of their com- mission in the future is to be anticipated from Respondent's conduct in the past. The preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless the Order is coextensive with the threat. In order, therefore, to make more effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and thereby minimize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce and ,thus effectuate the policies of the Act, I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Hoffman-Taff, Inc., is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. International Chemical Workers Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By interrogating employees concerning and threatening employees because of their union membership, activity, or sympathy, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the rights guaranteed in Section 7, Respondent thereby violating Section 8,(a) (1) of the Act. 4. By curtailing employee privileges to discourage union membership, activity, and sympathy by the employees, Respondent has discriminated in regard to conditions of employment to discourage membership in a labor organization, Respondent thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 6 I take official notice of the fact that in Case No. 17-RC-3554 the Board on Novem- ber 30, 1961, denied a request for review of the Regional Director ' s Supplemental Decision :and Certification of Results dated October 27, 1961. 1 1326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and: pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby recommend that the Respondent, Hoffman-Taff, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 4. Cease and desist from: (a) Unlawfully interrogating employees concerning and threatening employees, because of their union membership, activity, or sympathy in violation of the Act. (b) Discouraging membership in the Union, or any other labor organization of its employees, by discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of their employment or any term or condition of employment. (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees. in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join. or assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives. of their own choosing, and 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 right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employ- ment, as authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a)- Immediately restore to all of its employees all of the privileges withdrawn from them in May 1961. (b) Post in all buildings at its plant in Springfield, Missouri, copies of the notice- attached hereto marked "Appendix." 7 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Board's Seventeenth Region (Kansas City, Missouri), shall, after being signed by the representative of Respondent, be posted by Re- spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con- secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices- to employees are customarily posted in each of the buildings of the plant. Reason- able steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.8 'In the event that these Recommendations be adopted by the Board, the words "A Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order." 8In the event that these Recommendations be adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership in, activity or sympathy for, Interna- tional Chemical Workers Union , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of our employees , by withdrawing or changing any employee privileges-such as smoking , trading shifts, making up for lost hours, and starting shifts earlier on Saturdays-or by otherwise discriminating against employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union member- ship , activities , or sympathy. WE WILL NOT expressly of impliedly threaten our employees with discharge, closing the plant, or any other reprisal because of their membership in, sym- pathy for, or activity on behalf of International Chemical Workers Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self -organization , to form labor MORRISON CAFETERIA COMPANY OF LITTLE ROCK, INC. 1327 organizations , to join or assist International Chemical Workers Union, AFL- CIO, or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through repre- sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agree- ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employ- ment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor- Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. WE WILL restore to all employees all privileges withdrawn from them in May 1961-such as smoking other than at regular smoke breaks, trading shifts, making up for lost hours, and starting shifts earlier on Saturdays. All our employees are free to become , remain , or refrain from becoming members of the above-named Union or any other labor organization. HOFFMAN-TAFF, INC., Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board' s Regional Office (1200 Rialto Building, 906 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri; Telephone Number, BAltimore 1-7000, Extension 731, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Morrison Cafeteria Company of Little Rock , Inc. and Hotel- ,Motel Local 200, Hotel & Restaurant Employees and Bar- tenders International Union , AFL-CIO. Case No. 26-CA-1049. February 28, 1962 DECISION AND ORDER On October 17, 1961, Trial Examiner Lloyd Buchanan issued his Intermediate Report herein, finding that the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist there- from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermedi- ate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep- tions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-- member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Leedom]. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record. The Board affirms the Trial Ex- aminer's rulings and adopts his findings and conclusions except as modified herein. The Trial Examiner concluded that the Respondent unlawfully discharged employee Adams. We disagree. The facts are that on April 17, 1961, Autry, the dining room manager, assigned Adams; a waiter, to washing dishes during the noon meal, and pots and pans during the evening meal. When Adams failed to perform his evening 135 NLRB No. 136. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation