Hydro Conduit Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 24, 1979

240 N.L.R.B. 48 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

48 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Hydro Conduit Corporation and Chauffeurs, Team-
sters and Helpers Local Union #492 (Ind.); and
Laborers International Union of North America,
Local #16, AFL-CIO. Case 28-CA-4771
January 24, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND MURPHY
On September 21, 1978, Administrative Law Judge
Russell L. Stevens issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, and the General Coun-
sel filed cross-exceptions and a supporting brief. Re-
spondent then filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that Respondent, Hydro Conduit Corpora-
tion, Albuquerque, New Mexico, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the said recommended Order.
We find merit in the General Counsel's exceptions to certain inadvertent
errors by the Administrative Law Judge and correct his Decision to reflect
that Respondent granted general raises on February 5 and August 13. 1973,
rather than 1974, and that 37. rather than 57. votes were cast against the
Union in the April 27, 1978, election.
We also find merit in Respondent's exceptions to the Administrative Law
Judge's finding that Plant Manager Henry Reza testified that all necessary
study and planning for a 1978 general raise had been completed. The record
reveals that Reza in fact testified that a study was in process at the time of
the hearing. However. the fact that Respondent had not undertaken plan-
ning for a raise when it informed employees that wages were "frozen" as a
result of the election petition does not, as Respondent contends. alter the
illegality of its statement that wages were "frozen." Although Respondent's
failure to grant or study a raise was lawful, its attempt to ascribe the election
petition as the reason therefor clearly violated the Act.
Finally, since we adopt the Administrative Law Judge's finding that
Safety and Personnel Coordinator Joseph Chavez acted as Respondent's
agent in discussing across-the-board increases with employees, we find it
unnecessary to adopt his finding that Chavez did not possess supervisory
authonty.
240 NLRB No. I
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RUSSELL L. STEVENS, Administrative Law Judge: This
matter was heard before me in Albuquerque, New Mexico,
on July 6 and 7, 1978.1 The complaint, issued May I, is
based upon an original charge filed March 24 and a first
amended charge filed April 20 by Chauffeurs, Teamsters
and Helpers Local Union #492 (Ind.); and Laborers Inter-
national Union of North America, Local #16, AFL-CIO,
hereinafter referred to as the Unions. The complaint alleg-
es that Hydro Conduit Corporation (Respondent) violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (Act).
All parties were given full opportunity to participate, to
introduce relevant evidence, to argue orally, and to file
briefs. Briefs, which have been carefully considered, were
filed on behalf of General Counsel and Respondent.
Upon the entire record and from observation of the wit-
nesses and their demeanor, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is, and at all times material herein has been,
a corporation duly existing under and by virtue of the laws
of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of busi-
ness in Albuquerque, New Mexico, where it is engaged in
the manufacture, sale, and distribution of pipe and related
products. During the past 12 months, which period is rep-
resentative of its operations at all times material herein,
Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business op-
erations, purchased goods and materials valued in excess
of $50,000 which were transported in interstate commerce
and delivered to its place of business in New Mexico di-
rectly from States other than that of New Mexico.
I find that Respondent is, and at all times relevant herein
has been, an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local Union #492
(Ind.); and Laborers International Union of North Amer-
ica, Local #16, AFL CIO, are, and at all times material
herein have been, labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Background
Respondent has approximately 14 plants located at vari-
ous places in the United States, with corporate headquar-
ters in Newport Beach, California. A. J. Pitcher,2 whose
office is located in Newport Beach, is Respondent's equal
All dates hereinafter are within 1978, unless stated to be otherwise.
2All individuals are referred to herein by their last names.
HYDRO CONDUIT CORPORATION 49
employment opportunity (EEO) officer. Respondent has
regional offices, and the one responsible for the plant in-
volved in this controversy, i.e., the Albuquerque plant, is
located in Houston, Texas, under the management of Dan
Erdeljac.3 District offices are under the supervision of re-
gional offices; the Albuquerque operation is under the dis-
trict office in Denver, Colorado, where Ben Snow is man-
ager. Mike Herrera is the corporate director of safety, with
his office in Denver. The Albuquerque operation consists
of two plants, with the entire operation under the manage-
ment of Henry Reza.4 The pipe plant manager at Albu-
querque is D. P. Brown, and the prestress plant manager is
Earl Huffman. Total employee complement of both plants
has varied from approximately 120 to 136 over the past
year. Each plant has various functions, directed by super-
visors. One of the Albuquerque operation employees in-
volved herein is Joe Chavez, the safety and personnel coor-
dinator.
Respondent gives its Albuquerque employees three types
of raises. One type is an automatic raise, given to new em-
ployees after they have successfully completed 30, 90, and
180 days of employment. After employees reach 180 days
they are at the bottom of the grade 2, or laborer, category.5
A second type is referred to as a merit, or production, raise.
Merit raises are given to reward employees and consist of
moving an employee up within a series of wage steps en-
compassed by a single wage grade. Promotion raises are
given when an employee is promoted to a higher grade
level. A third type of raise is a general across-the-board
increase given to all employees at the same time.6
Across-the-board, or general, raises usually have been
given in the past, approximately in February of each year,
to all hourly employees. Since 1968, employees have been
given at least one general raise each year; two such raises
were given in 1973 and 1977. The 1974 general raises were
given February 5 and August 13; the 1977 general raises
were given in February (approximately 7-1/2 percent) and
on August 8 (approximately 7 percent). No raise was given
in February 1978, and as of the date of trial, none was
announced for 1978.
The Unions have been attempting to organize
Respondent's Albuquerque operation for several years. On
March 5, 1978, the Unions filed a petition for representa-
tion of Respondent's employees, and an election was con-
ducted April 27, 1978. One hundred five eligible voters cast
ballots, of which 53 were for the Unions and 57 were
against the Unions; 4 ballots were challenged. Respondent
filed objections to the election, and that matter presently is
before the Board.
3 Dick Boberschmidt, now vice president of operations with an office in
Denver. formerl) was regional manager at Houston.
4Counsel stipulated that Reza is a supervisor within the meaning of the
Act. He was assistant general manager prior to becoming general manager
on November 15. 1977.
5 G.C. Exh. 4.
6 It is quite clear from the unchallenged and credited testimony f Reza
and Chavez. as well as from the record as a whole. including G.C. Exh. 5
and Resp. Exh. B and C. that automatic. merit, and promotion raises have
been given at all times herein. according to Respondent's regular practice.
Only across-the-board increases are in controverss. Further. there is no
contention by G(eneral Counsel that an' benefit other than wages s in-
volved
The controversy herein primarily arises from the fact
that employees have not received a general raise in 1978,
allegedly contrary to their expectations. Reza acknowl-
edges that all necessary study and planning for a 1978 gen-
eral raise has been completed but that no date for a raise
has been established because wages have been "frozen"
upon the suggestion of Respondent's attorney. That sug-
gestion is made in a letter from Respondent's attorney7
addressed to Reza on March 14, 1978, and thereafter dis-
tributed to Respondent's employees as an enclosure with
their paychecks on March 17, 1978.
A. Respondent's Knowledge of Union ActivitO,
Reza testified that the Unions have been trying to orga-
nize Respondent for several years and that there have been
10 or II petitions for representation filed by the Unions
since 1964. Reza further testified that raises have been giv-
en in the past, sometimes while there has been union activi-
ty and sometimes not, and that Respondent knew of union
activity in July 1977, while arrangements were being made
for a general increase for nonsalaried employees. That tes-
timony by Reza was not challenged and is credited.
Reza testified that he first learned of union activity con-
cerning the present campaign in July 1977, when he saw
union cards being distributed outside the gates and heard
from employees about the activity. There is nothing in the
record to contradict this testimony by Reza, and this point
is not in issue. It is clear that Respondent was well aware of
union activity at all times relevant herein. That knowledge
continued through the August 1977 general raise and until
the present time.
B. The August 1977 General Wage Increase
The fact that all hourly employees were given a general
increase in August 1977 is not in dispute. Reza's testimony
that Respondent began considering that raise in June 1977
and that the raise was given for valid business reasons is
given full credence. The fact that two general raises were
given in 1977 creates no inference of improper motive. The
year 1977 was not the first in which two raises were given,
and Reza's description of the necessity for Respondent to
meet the competition's wage structure when considering its
own structure was logical and convincing. Finally, General
Counsel has not alleged that the August 1977 raise was
given in violation of the Act.
C. Chavez' Status as an Employee
The materiality of Chavez' meeting with employees prior
to and in February of 1978, discussed infra, depends upon
Chavez' status as an employee. General Counsel contends
that Chavez is a supervisor, that he met with employees in
February, and that Chavez told the employees they would
receive a 1978 raise divided into two parts, one to be given
in April and one in September or October. Respondent
contends that Chavez is not a supervisor within the mean-
ing of the Act.
G.C. Exh. 3.
HYDRO CONDUIT CORPORATION
_ _ _ _
50 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Chavez is Respondent's safety and personnel coordina-
tor at the Albuquerque operation, with an annual salary of
$10,200. He receives no overtime pay. Chavez has an office
and maintains files related to his responsibilities, but he
has no secretary or assistants; he does his own typing. In
his duties related to safety, he is guided by Herrera of the
Denver office. He follows EEO guidelines established by
Pitcher of the Newport Beach office and by Reza. He con-
fers on an irregular basis with Herrera and Pitcher and on
a regular basis with Reza. His duties related to payroll mat-
ters are clerical and routine in nature and are in accor-
dance with procedure and forms emanating from the Den-
ver office, where the payroll function is located.
Chavez testified: Herrera visits the Albuquerque opera-
tion approximately once each 4 weeks, and the two of them
tour the plants on safety inspections. Herrera thereafter
issues discrepancy slips to appropriate supervisors, with
copies to Chavez. Regular safety inspections are made by
Chavez alone, approximately once each month. He reports
all discrepancies to appropriate supervisors and asks that
corrective measures be taken. Warning slips given to em-
ployees are prepared by the supervisor if he is in or by
Chavez otherwise, but supervisors must sign or later ac-
knowledge all warning slips. Sometimes Chavez orally
warns employees before warning slips are prepared. Copies
of warning slips are put into personnel jackets maintained
by Chavez. It is the responsibility of supervisors to see that
corrections of improper safety conditions are made, but it
is Chavez' responsibility to report to supervisors or to Reza
or Herrera if the corrections are not made. Safety meetings
for all plant employees are conducted by Chavez on a regu-
lar schedule established at the corporate level. Attendance
rolls are kept at the meetings, and it is the responsibility of
supervisors to see that employees attend the meetings. Ac-
cident forms are prepared by appropriate supervisors and
given to Chavez, who completes the necessary forms for
the insurance carrier and does the attendant clerical work.
So far as personnel matters are concerned, Chavez said he
is merely a liaison link between management and employ-
ees, with no authority to take independent action relative
to any employee. He said he interviews and screens appli-
cants, but he has no authority to hire anyone; only super-
visors have that authority. He has no authority to recom-
mend or give raises; he is notified by supervisors after they
give raises, and he then completes the necessary clerical
work. Employees who are off work must notify their super-
visor, but if the supervisor is not in, they notify Chavez.
Employees report to supervisors, and not to Chavez. Reza
handles all EEO complaints, and either Reza or Huffman
signs all quarterly EEO reports. Chavez receives comp-
laints from employees, but he acts only in a clerical capaci-
ty in resolving the complaints; matters of substance are
handled by supervisors or Reza. All matters related to dis-
charges are handled by supervisors; Chavez only does the
paper work involved. Chavez does not attend any supervis-
or or management meetings. He answers directly to, and
frequently confers with, Reza. He has no authority over or
access to information concerning salaried employees. C'ha-
vez has no authority to discipline employees in any man-
ner. He is not involved in raises, either general or merit, in
any manner. On one occasion an employee, Leroy Sedillo,
refused to sign a safety warning slip, which refusal was in
violation of announced company policy. Chavez reported
the matter to Huffman, who told Chavez to "follow
course," which referred to the policy stating, "Employees
that refuse to sign a warning slip that is issued can be
dismissed upon refusal to sign the warning slip." Chavez
then told Sedillo that he had been dismissed. Sedillo was
not told that Chavez talked with Huffman, and Chavez
alone told Sedillo he had been fired.
Reza corroborated Chavez' testimony relative to the
latter's authority and said all final hiring authority is vested
in supervisors, while final discharge and disciplining au-
thority is vested in plant management. Reza said Chavez
had no role in the general wage increases given to employ-
ees in the past; Chavez only does the paper work involved.
Counsel stipulated that employee identity cards are
signed by Chavez, identified as "Payroll Clerk."
James Tenorio testified that he was hired by Chavez, as
a forklift driver. Tenorio said he was interviewed only by
Chavez.
Discussion
Reza was a convincing witness, and his testimony on this
subject is given full credence. It is clear that Chavez is
somewhat more than an ordinary clerk, but it also is clear
that he is not a supervisor, since he supervises no one and
has no independent authority. Even his clerical function is
limited, since he has little contact with salaried employees:
his work is confined almost entirely to hourly employees.
No employee works under Chavez: all his typing, filing,
and formkeeping must be done by him alone. Employee
identity cards identify Chavez as a payroll clerk, clearly
referring to recordkeeping, since the payroll is kept in Den-
ver. Chavez never attends supervisor or management meet-
ings, and he has nothing to do with any raises, general,
merit, or promotion. Only supervisors and managers can
hire, fire, and discipline. Chavez' actions relative to Teno-
rio and Sedillo were not independent actions; they were
taken only within the ambit of standard procedure relative
to hiring and firing, within which procedure Chavez' au-
thority is clerical rather than supervisory.
However, this finding that Chavez is not a supervisor
does not conclude the matter, since the actions of Chavez
described infra were, on at least one occasion, the actions
of an agent speaking for management.
D. Chavez' Meetings With Eniplovees in Eariv 1978
Rebecca Dunham, a salaried employee in Respondent's
drafting department, prepared a suggestion8 in early 1978
and gave it to Chavez. Dunham suggested that Respondent
give two small raises each year instead of one large raise, in
the interest of employee morale. Dunham testified that she
understood the employees received a general raise each
year.
Chavez talkeu with employees on two occasions approxi-
mately in February, during the regular safety meetings de-
Resp. Ixh A
HYDRO CONDUIT CORPORATION 51
scribed supra, concerning the possibility of a general raise
in 1978. Safety meetings are held in groups, and Tenorio
testified that an employee in his group asked Chavez about
a raise, to which Chavez replied: "As of right now, all the
information I have is a big zero for you guys as for the
annual raise. But I will try and find out, within a week or
so, what is going to become of the annual raise." Chavez
testified to the same effect concerning the first meeting.
Montoya testified that Chavez told his group sometime in
January or February that Respondent was "going to split
the 30 cent raise, annual raise, in two, like they were going
to give us 4 percent in April, 3 percent in August or 2
percent in April and 4 percent in August. I don't remember
which way it was.' Montoya later said the total raise was
said to be 7 percent, split into two smaller raises. Montoya
also said it was possible that Chavez said it had been sug-
gested that the raise be split. Montoya's recall of the meet-
ing was acknowledged to be hazy. Tenorio testified that
Chavez told the employees the week following the first in-
stance described above:
A. Yes, it was a regular weekly meeting. And he said
that they had come to the decision that they were
going to give us a three percent in April and a four
percent raise in September or October; I don't remem-
ber exactly if it was September or October that he
said. But that is the way they were going to work it;
that it was to our benefit or something to that effect.
Q. Did he have anything with him to demonstrate?
A. Yes. He had a cardboard chart that he showed us
as to how it was going to be to our benefit, that they
would give us the three percent in April and then our
four percent in September or October.
Q. Did anyone question him about it?
A. Yes, one of the employees said, "Well, if we got
the seven percent raise right away, wouldn't we gain
just that much more on the month?" And he said,
"Well, it doesn't work that way." And there he said,
"If anybody doesn't like the way it is handled, they
can just go out and find another job."
Chavez testified: He received Dunham's suggestion after
the first of the two meetings which employees described
above. He talked with Reza about the suggestion, and Reza
said it looked like a good idea. Reza then asked Chavez to
talk with employees at one of the safety meetings and as-
certain their thoughts. Chavez talked with the employees at
the next safety meeting, told them about Dunham's sugges-
tion, and explained the possible advantages of a split raise.
The employees were noncommittal. Chavez denied that he
told employees they were going to receive a raise, or a split
raise; he said he merely used the figures 3 percent and 4
percent as examples. Chavez reported the events of the
meeting to Reza. At no time did Reza say there was going
to be a general raise in 1978; he only told Chavez there
would be no February 1978 raise because of the raise given
in August 1977.
Reza testified in detail concerning the manner in which
general raises are given. He said the subject first is consid-
ered at the plant level and then is considered at the district,
regional, and corporate levels and during the process is
coordinated with the Company's attorney. Two principal
considerations are the wage structure of its competitor and
the rate of inflation. Reza said employees were told on
August 2, 1977, that they would receive a general raise later
in August because of employee dissatisfaction resulting
from inflationary pressure and that the employees were
told, "Since we are giving you this raise now, the raise
which you normally get in February will be changed to
some different time." Reza said the matter had been dis-
cussed within management, and Snow indicated that the
next raise probably would be in August 1978. Reza testi-
fied: The company attorney told him employees had been
asking the attorney about a possible raise in February, and
the attorney said Respondent must be extremely careful
because of the union activity. In January or February Cha-
vez told Reza that employees had asked him about the
possibility of a raise, and Reza replied:
I told him that since we had initiated an across the
board increase in August and got ourselves into com-
petitive position with our competitor, that we felt like
we had given a fairly good increase at that time, that
we would not be giving one in February but at some
later date we probably would start the ground work
for the next across the board increase.
I also told him that he should advise the employees
that that was the case.
Q. That they would not be getting any February
increase?
A. Yes, sir.
About a week later Chavez talked with Reza about the
Dunham suggestion. Reza told Chavez he would take the
matter under advisement and that, in the meantime, Cha-
vez should ask the employees what they thought about the
suggestion. Chavez later was asked by Reza about the em-
ployees' reaction, and Chavez said they had little reaction,
but a few employees did not like the idea. The suggestion
later was discussed among management officials, but no
action was taken. Reza did not tell Chavez about how to
present the suggestion to employees. Reza testified that no
general increase was planned in February 1978 but that the
possibility of an increase has been under study since June
1978. That study again primarily addressed the matters of
inflation and competition.
Respondent's attorney prepared the letter, General
Counsel's Exhibit 3, at Reza's request. Reza testified that
since receipt of the letter, he has considered that wages are
frozen. Reza said most study and preliminary preparation
for an increase has been completed but that a date for the
increase has not been established.
Discussion
Reza and Chavez were convincing witnesses, and they
are credited. It is quite clear that the two raises, of approxi-
mately 7 percent each, given in 1977 represented a depar-
ture from the usual pattern of one raise each year, although
two raises were given in 1973. There is nothing to show that
the August 1977 raise was related in any manner to union
activity. Reza's testimony that union activity is almost a
yearly occurrence and that past yearly raises were given at
approximately the time of, but unrelated to, that union
HYDRO C NDUIT CORPORATION
52 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
activity was not challenged or contradicted and is credited.
Reza's testimony that employees were told prior to the
August 1977 raise that it may affect the timing of the next
raise is logical, in view of the unusual nature of the raise,
and is credited.
Reza's testimony that the August 1977 raise was occa-
sioned by employee dissatisfaction and because of the
wage structure of Respondent's competitor was not chal-
lenged and is credited. It may well be, as argued by Gener-
al Counsel, that employees expected and wanted another
raise in February, only 5 or 6 months later, but such an
expectation would be illogical, since employees were well
aware that one general raise each year was Respondent's
usual practice. When employees asked about a February
1978 raise, they were told by Chavez that such a raise
would not be forthcoming. It is clear, from the testimony
of Reza and Chavez, that when Chavez spoke on this sub-
ject, it was after conference with, and upon the specific
instruction of, Reza. Chavez thus spoke as Respondent's
agent at the two employee meetings, regardless of his status
as a supervisor. There is nothing to show that there was
any connection between Respondent's withholding of a
February 1978 raise and union activity. The union petition
for representation was not filed until March 3, after Cha-
vez met with the employees. It is clear, beyond reasonable
question, that a raise was not given in February 1978 be-
cause employees' wages were raised approximately 14 per-
cent in 1977 and that those raises were designed to meet
the requirement to keep abreast of the wage structure of
Respondent's competitor.
Chavez' testimony that he made no promise of a raise for
February or April, or for any other time in 1978, is credit-
ed. His testimony that he talked with employees about the
possible advantages of splitting a 1978 raise into two parts
was supported by the nature of Reza's testimony and has
Montoya's acknowledged possibility of support. In view of
the record as a whole, Tenorio's testimony that Chavez
promised a 1978 raise of approximately 7 percent, split into
two parts to be given in April and August, is not credited.
Based upon the manner in which raises are determined by
Respondent and based upon Chavez' obvious status as no
more than a high-level clerk, it would be illogical and un-
realistic for Reza to authorize Chavez to make the commit-
ment attributed to him by Tenorio. Clearly, Chavez would
not, and did not, take it upon himself to make such a com-
mitment.
A question is suggested as to whether or not Respondent
decided upon a raise for August 1978. Reza's testimony is
not entirely consistent, but it appears possible that Respon-
dent had decided to give a general raise to employees ap-
proximately in August. However, that matter was not al-
leged in the complaint, was not litigated, and would require
speculation for decision, since the case was heard in July.
Nonetheless, employees logically may have expected a
raise in August, and the letter to employees of March 14
stated that wages were frozen pending an election. That
statement possibly would not be objectionable if no raise
had been planned or considered, but Reza testified that
preliminary work for a raise had been completed, with no
date established for the raise. Under such circumstances
the letter was a statement that because of the pending elec-
tion, there would be no raise during that pendency. The
attorney's letter and Reza's testimony show beyond ques-
tion the fact of, and the union activity reason for, the
"freeze." That letter constitutes a violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act, as alleged.
IV EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE UPON COMMERCE
Respondent's activities set forth in section 111, above,
occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent
described in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the
Act, I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to
cease and desist therefrom and from, in any like or related
manner, infringing upon its employees' Section 7 rights
and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
It is recommended that allegations of the complaint not
found proved be dismissed in their entirety.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the
entire record, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. Hydro Conduit Corporation is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
2. Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local Union
#492 (Ind.); and Laborers International Union of North
America, Local #16, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By threatening to withhold a general wage increase for
employees because of the union activity of its employees,
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby
issue the following recommended:
ORDER9
THE RESPONDENT, HYDRO CONDUIT CORPORATION, ITS OFFI-
CERS, AGENTS, SUCCESSORS, AND ASSIGNS, SHALL:
1. Cease and desist from:
9 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
waives for all purposes.
HYDRO CONDUIT CORPORATION 53
(a) Threatening to withhold wage increases from its em-
ployees becuase of their union or other protected activity.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate the
policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its Albuquerque, New Mexico, operation cop-
ies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' ° Copies of
the attached notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 28, after being duly signed by an au-
thorized representative of Respondent, shall be posted by
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu-
ous places, including all places where notices to employees
customarily are posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that the notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
10 In the event that this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals. the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 28, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing in which all sides had the opportunity to
present evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has
found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post this notice. We intend to carry
out the Order of the Board.
WE WILL NOT threaten to withhold wage increases for
our employees because of their union or other protect-
ed activity.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act.
HYDRO CONDUIT CORPORATION
HYDRO C NDUIT CORPORATION