Illinois Marble Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 24, 1967

167 N.L.R.B. 1012 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

1012 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Illinois Marble Co., Inc. and Journeymen Stone Cut-
ters Association of North America, AFL-CIO and
The Safety Committee of Illinois Marble Co., Inc.
Cases 14-CA-4102 and 14-RC-5492
October 24, 1967
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND BROWN
On May 25, 1967, Trial Examiner Horace A.
Ruckel issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondent had not en-
gaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint and recommending that the complaint be
dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the General
Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the General Counsel's
exceptions and supporting brief, and the entire
record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Ex-
aminer only to the extent consistent herewith.
The General Counsel contends that, contrary to
the Trial Examiner's findings, the Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) by its interrogation and
promises of benefits to employees. We find that the
record as a whole does not support these allegations
and, accordingly, we adopt the Trial Examiner's
recommendations that the complaint be dismissed
in this regard. General Counsel further contends
that the Respondent's role in the initiation and
management of The Safety Committee was at least
a violation of Section 8(a)(1)1 and that it also con-
stituted domination and interference with the for-
mation and administration of a labor organization in
violation of Section 8(a)(2). We find merit in the
General Counsel's position respecting the 8(a)(1)
allegation.
1. As more fully set forth by the Trial Examiner,
immediately after receiving notice of the filing of a
representation petition on June 30, 1966, Respond-
ent hired a labor relations consultant, who inter-
viewed the employees on July 7, 1966, and
discovered that their principal interest in a union
stemmed from two grievances. The first concerned
an intemperate supervisor who was discharged 2,
weeks later, and the second was dissatisfaction with
unsafe working conditions at the plant. On August
19, 1966, the Respondent called a meeting of em-
ployees at which it announced the creation of a
safety committee. Management appointed em-
ployees to serve on the Committee, and they were
excused from work without loss of pay to attend the
bimonthly, and later monthly, safety meetings.
These meetings were held in places provided and at
times set unilaterally by the Employer. Various
conditions at the plant which were of concern to the
employees were raised and discussed,2 and if the
Respondent was in agreement with the Commit-
tee's suggestions it acted upon them. Thus, for ex-
ample, it ordered its maintenance crew to make cer-
tain corrections before the next meeting. The
representation election was held on September 2,
1966, and the Charging Party lost the election.
It is apparent from the above that the Respondent
established and then controlled the Committee, and
changed working conditions, because of the pen-
dency of an election petition. Nor is there any doubt
that by the device of the committee the Respondent
sought to ameliorate some areas of employee
discontent which had prompted the employees to
seek the assistance of a labor union. Considering all
the circumstances, including the timing of Respond-
ent's conduct during the critical period of the elec-
tion proceeding, we are impelled to the conclusion
that the sole reason for Respondent's conduct was
to dissuade its employees from choosing the Union
as their representative. This action clearly was for
the purpose and had the effect of interfering with
the employees' Section 7 right freely to choose their
own representative.3 Accordingly, we find that the
Respondent's conduct constituted a violation of
Section 8(a)(1).4
2. The Union's objections to the election are
based upon the unlawful conduct detailed above,
which occurred after the filing of the representation
I While the Trial Examiner did not consider the General Counsel's al-
legation in the complaint that the Respondent's relationship to The Safety
Committee constituted an independent violation of Section 8 (a)(1), the
General Counsel's brief in support of his exceptions again advances this
theory
L The record shows that Respondent did not intend The Safety Com-
mittee's activities to be confined to safety conditions alone Thus,
Respondent 's original notice to employees announcing the formation of
the Committee stated that "Ths Committee will be your Committee to
bring forward to the Company any problems which should be taken care
of according to safety and other problems as they exist " (Emphasis sup-
plied) Among traditional conditions of employment discussed at The
Safety Committee meetings were the need for an additional truckdriver,
a telephone for the quarry , convenience of skilled placement , and house
cleaning
3 Walton Mfg Co, 126 NLRB 697, enfd 289 F 2d 177 (CA 5),
where the Board found that the employer violated Section 8(a)(1) by
merely promising the formation of an employee committee , which never
came into existence, for "safety , sanitation , and advisory matters "
" Under the circumstances, including the nature of our Order , we find
it unnecessary to pass upon the 8 (a)(2) matters alleged
167 NLRB No. 147
ILLINOIS MARBLE CO., INC.
petition and before the holding of the election. We
find that this conduct interfered with a free and un-
trammeled choice in the election, and we shall set
aside the election of September 2, 1966.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respond-
ent, Illinois Marble Co., Inc., Anna, Illinois, its of-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Granting benefits through The Safety Com-
mittee, or any other similar employee committee,
for the purpose of interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act; provided,
however, that nothing in this Decision and Order
shall require Respondent to vary or abandon any
safety measure or other substantive feature which
it has established as a result of the existence of the
committee; and provided further that nothing herein
shall be construed as prohibiting its employees
themselves from forming, joining, or assisting any
labor organization, including an employee represen-
tation committee, or plan, as guaranteed to them by
Section 7 of the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the
exercise of their right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist any labor organization, to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in other concerted activi-
ties for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, and 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 employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Re-
porting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its Anna, Illinois, plant, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."5 Copies of
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 14, after being duly signed by
Respondent's authorized representative, shall be
posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and
be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respond-
ent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14,
in writing, within 10 days from the date of this
Order, what steps have been taken to comply
herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held on
1013
September 2, 1966, among Respondent's em-
ployees, be, and it hereby is, set aside, and that
Case 14-RC-5492 be remanded to the Regional
Director for Region 14 for the purpose of conduct-
ing a new election in the appropriate unit at such
time as he deems that the circumstances permit the
free choice of a bargaining representative.
[Direction of Second Election 6 omitted from
publication.]
5 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and
Order" the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals En-
forcing an Order "
6 An election eligibility list , containing the names and addresses of all
the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional
Director for Region 14, within 7 days after the date of issuance of the
Notice of Second Election by the Regional Director The Regional
Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election No ex-
tension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director ex-
cept in extraordinary circumstances Failure to comply with this require-
ment shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper ob-
jections are filed Excelsior Underwear Inc , 156 N LRB 1236
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 you that:
WE WILL NOT grant benefits through The
Safety Committee, or any other similar em-
ployee committee, for the purpose of interfer-
ing with, restraining, or coercing our em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
them in Section 7 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self-or-
ganization, to form labor organizations, to join
or assist any labor organization, to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in other concerted ac-
tivities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from any or all such activities, except to the ex-
tent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor or-
ganization as a condition of employment in
conformity with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as
modified by the Labor-Management Reporting
and Disclosure Act of 1959.
All our employees are free to become or remain,
or to refrain from becoming or remaining, members
1014 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of any labor organization as guaranteed by Section
7 of the Act.
ILLINOIS MARBLE CO.,
INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions, they may
communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 1040 Boatmen's Bank Building, 314 North
Broadway, St. Louis, Missouri 63102, Telephone
622-4167.
TRIAL EXAMINER ' S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HORACE A. RUCKEL, Trial Examiner: A complaint of
unfair labor practices, dated January 11, 1967 (Case
14-CA-4102), was issued by the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board, herein called the
General Counsel and the Board, through the Board's Re-
gional Director for Region 14 (St. Louis, Missouri),
against Illinois Marble Co., Inc.,' herein called Respond-
ent, based upon an amended charge filed on January 4,
1967, by Journeymen Stonecutters Association of North
America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union.
The complaint alleges in substance that Respondent,
by its supervisors, has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights under
the National Labor Relations Act, herein the Act, by in-
terrogating employees regarding their interest in the
Union, by promising certain benefits if they refrained
from aiding it, and by organizing, supporting, and interfer-
ing with the administration of The Safety Committee for
the purpose of negotiating with employees. Respondent's
answer denies the commission of any unfair labor prac-
tices.
In Case 14-RC-5492, the Union filed a petition for an
election which was held on September 2, 1966 The
Union lost and on September 9 filed timely objections to
conduct said to have affected the result of the election.
On January 11, 1967, the Regional Director issued an
order overruling the Union's objections. At the same
time, pursuant to prior authorization by the Board, the
Regional Director directed that there be heard before a
Trial Examiner evidence of conduct by Respondent
which, "although not specifically alleged in the objec-
tions," had been revealed by the Regional Director's in-
vestigation in Case 14-RC-5492 and which is said to be
"identical to the conduct" alleged to constitute unfair
labor practices in Case 14-CA-4102 He further directed
the two cases be consolidated for hearing and that the
' At the hearing the complaint was amended so that the name of the
Respondent would appear as above Originally, the complaint bore the
name of Lutz Marble Company, Inc , a predecessor of Respondent
Trial Examiner prepare and serve upon the parties a re-
port, with recommendations to the Board as to the
disposition of these issues.
Pursuant to notice I conducted a hearing at Jonesboro,
Illinois, on February 28, 1967, at which all parties were
represented. At the conclusion of the hearing the parties
waived oral argument. The General Counsel and Re-
spondent have filed timely briefs.
Upon the entire record of the case and from my obser-
vation of the witnesses, I make the following.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is, and has been at all times material
herein, an Illinois corporation and a wholly owned sub-
sidiary of General Stone and Materials Corporation, a
Virginia corporation, having its principal office and place
of business in the City of Roanoke, Commonwealth of
Virginia, herein called the main plant, and maintains other
installations either directly or through the operation of
wholly owned subsidiaries, in the State of Illinois.
General Stone and Materials Corporation is engaged in
the manufacture, sale, and distribution of stone, crushed
rock, gravel, sand, and related products. The plant
operated by Respondent and located at Anna, Illinois, is
the only facility involved in this proceeding.
During the year ending December, 31, 1966, which
period is representative of its operations during all times
material herein, General Stone and Materials Corpora-
tion, in the course and conduct of its business operations,
manufactured, sold, and distributed at its main plant,
products valued in excess of $500,000, of which products
valued in excess of $50,000 were shipped from said plant
directly to points located outside of the Commonwealth
of Virginia.
During the same period Respondent, in the course and
conduct of its business operations, manufactured, sold,
and distributed at its Anna, Illinois, plant, products
valued in excess of $25,000, of which products valued in
excess of $22,000 were shipped from said plant directly
to points located outside the State of Illinois.
11 THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Journeymen Stonecutters Association of North Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization admitting em-
ployees of Respondent to membership.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Alleged Interference, Restraint , and Coercion
1. Background
During the summer of 1966, the Union conducted an
organizational drive among Respondent's employees, and
on September 2, pursuant to a petition filed on June 30,
the Board conducted an election which the Union lost.
The Union filed its original charge herein on September
8 On September 9, it filed objections to the election,
which the Regional Director overruled.
2. The Safety Committee
On July 7, 1966, Clay Huddleston , Respondent 's labor
relations consultant, arrived in town and talked to a
ILLINOIS MARBLE CO., INC.
supper meeting of 15 to 20 employees convened at a local
hotel . Huddleston , who paid for the supper , asked those
present if they had any "gripes" they wanted to voice,
and some of them expressed personal dissatisfaction with
Jerome Lutz, general superintendent , who, it was said,
cursed the employees, as well as dissatisfaction with cer-
tain assertedly hazardous conditions in the plant, such as
a derrick and an overhead crane which were said to be un-
safe. Huddleston promised to relay the complaints to
Hughes, Respondent 's president, and to obtain an answer
if possible . In response to a question as to Respondent's
wage "policy ," he stated that he was not familiar with it
but would ask Hughes No other mention was made of
wages, and none at all of the Union.
On July 28, Respondent replaced Lutz with Don
Crocker, as general superintendent , and the employees
were so advised. On August 17, Crocker convened a
meeting of employees at which he announced the creation
of a safety committee on which employees , appointed by
management , were to serve on a rotating basis. For a
period , committee meetings were held weekly or
biweekly after hours, and then monthly . Wages were paid
members of the Committee while meeting. The minutes
of these meetings , 14 in number , from August 25, 1966,
to February 23, 1967 (the last meeting prior to the hear-
ing), are in evidence . Four meetings were confined solely
to the showing of safety films. The minutes of the other
10 meetings reveal that numerous suggestions concerning
safety were made and discussed . Only minutes of the
meetings of August 25 and September 1 were offered by
the General Counsel.
At the August 25 meeting the following matters were
discussed and are set forth verbatim as they appear in the
minutes:
House cleaning at shop ; plans to install low voltage
controls on cranes at foot level; foot covers-safety
shoe ; guards at machines ; saw cart - veneer & gang;
hole in front of shop room ; fence at pitman at gang
saw; pens & chains at quarry ; axels at quarry;
dynamite at quarry; swinging brakes on crane at
quarry; wrap slings at quarry ; safety goggles shop &
quarry; face mask at quarry; polishing table unsafe;
wires at 48 " saw; ladders at quarry; no trespassing
signs at quarry ; outside-overhead crane turn bkle;
Mae should write Aetna on safety films available,
also order 2 pr. safety foot guards ; Mae reported that
letter had been written to Aetna on ear plugs; Don
reported truck bought for the quarry.
The General Counsel , in his brief points out that "all of
the safety matters brought up at this meeting" concerned
"working conditions ." He points specifically to two:
"House Cleaning" and "Face Mask at Quarry."
Presumably these are selected as more truly working con-
ditions than other working conditions, though I cannot, at
the moment, divine why. And if "Face Mask at Quarry,"
why not "Safety Goggles Shop and Quarry," or "Foot
Covers -Safety Shoe?"
The complete minutes of the September 1 meeting,
were as follows:
Some of the same things were mentioned that had
been talked about previously.
2 "Lowell Hileman and Jerry Bridges should wear their safety hats
Jerry should wear Ear - Protector when cleaning "
S "To call home? To call the office in the event of an accident9"
This section defines a labor organization as
(5)-any organization of any kind , or any agency or employee
1015
New things:
Dynamite back of lathe at shop; Flat Bed Blue
truck unsafe in steering
Mae should write insurance company regarding
larger posters for displays at shop and quarry.
Check on Face masks at Blankenship.
The foot guards were shown to the men. They de-
cided they did not like them, and that they should be
returned.
The General Counsel , however , does not here put his
finger on any item as being more a working condition than
any other, but offers the exhibit for whatever it might be
worth; perhaps to show that "House Cleaning" and
"Face Mask at Quarry" were again discussed. The new
matter of "dynamite back of lathe at shop ," instead of in
the quarry , gives one to pause. Is this a "safety matter" or
a "condition of work?"
Of the 12 sets of minutes introduced by Respondent,
the General Counsel in his brief notes that the following
six items were mentioned:
1. Need of an additional truckdnver
2. New employees must be told of requirements
to purchase equipment (safety shoes).
3 The wearing of safety equipment by em-
ployees.2
4. Telephone for the quarry s
5. Convenience of scale placement.
6. First aid kits for quarry
No reason is given for selecting these examples instead
of others. There is no evidence other than the minutes
themselves to show what was taken up at the safety
meetings. Ted Holderfield, an employee member of the
Committee, called by the General Counsel testified that
so far as he could recall nothing other than safety condi-
tions was ever discussed The testimony of David John-
son, another member of the Committee, is to the same ef-
fect. Any finding that the organization is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act,4
therefore, must be based upon the evidence of the minutes
themselves, particularly upon those which the General
Counsel points. To my mind they are not sufficient to
bear this burden It may be conceded that the matters re-
ported in the minutes all concern "conditions of work."
For my part I have difficulty thinking of any activity in a
plant which does not to some degree affect the conditions
of work. It is not contended that The Safety Committee
was formed to deal with employees concerning "labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, or hours of employment"
(language studiously avoided in the complaint), but only
"conditions of work," namely safety conditions. Is it then
to be concluded that a committee which exists only to
deal with safety conditions is ipso facto a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of the Act, if it has employees as
members, and "must be disestablished" as the General
Counsel's brief has it'
I turn to the cases cited by the General Counsel in sup-
port of this position: In Ralph Wells & Co. (151 NLRB
1384), management announced a safety committee to be
formed which would have to do with "working conditions
and gripes and complaints. . everything ... it would im-
prove communications from the top to the bottom and
representation committee or plan , in which employees participate and
which exists for the purpose in whole or in part, of dealing with em-
ployees concerning grievances , labor disputes, wages , rates of pay,
hours of employment , or conditions of work
1016 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from the bottom to the top ... cover grievances , safety
and everything ." The committee , when formed , declared
that it was intended to "improve working conditions on
company-wide basis." Some of the problems dealt with at
its meetings affected compensation , and other terms and
conditions of employment The connection of other mat-
ters with safety the Board found " somewhat tenuous."
In Certain-Teed Products Corporation (147 NLRB
1517), the announced purpose of a "suggestion " commit-
tee was to give the employees "an opportunity to offer
their suggestions , ideas and comments on our company
policies, practices , benefits and manufacturing
techniques ," and urged the employees to submit their
suggestions to the committee . While most of the matters
discussed at the meetings concerned typical safety mat-
ters, many pertained to raises in wages for certain em-
ployees, as well as a general wage increase , discussion of
the comparability of wages in the plant with those prevail-
ing in the area , 5 the reasons for the discharge of certain
employees , the seniority rights of the lathe operators, and
a poll of employees , suggested by the committee, as to
whether shift rotation in the manufacturing and finishing
department should be reduced from 4 weeks to 2 weeks.
In Walton Manufacturing Company (126 NLRB 697),
the Board found violative of Section 8(a)(1)'6 of the Act an
announcement by an employer of the creation of a
management-employee committee for "safety, sanitation,
and advisory matters," which was "to work together to
improve," among other things, "the general welfare of the
employees and the Company " Part of the employer's
notice to the employees dealing with the committee ap-
peared in the middle of a "Magna Charta" of employment
which , the Board found , covered "everything usually set
out in a collective -bargaining agreement "
If The Safety Committee in the case at bar is to be
found a company dominated labor organization within the
meaning of the Act, it must be on the basis of authority
other than the cases cited by the General Counsel, all of
which have to do with committees formed to deal at least
partly, with wages , hours of employment , or working con-
ditions other than strictly safety conditions.
Here , The Safety Committee dealt exclusively with
safety matters. There was no discussion at any meeting of
"labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, or hours of employ-
ment ," or of "grievances " or "conditions of work" except
as they pertained to safety . While it is true that Respond-
ent's notice of the creation of a safety committee stated
that it would " take care" of "other problems ," no other
problems were in fact considered so far as this record
reveals.'
The whole thrust of the General Counsel 's case is that
safety conditions are "conditions of work" within the
meaning of the Act and that ipso facto a safety commit-
tee, though it is formed by an employer for no other pur-
pose and deals with nothing but safety matters, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act, if it has employee members . I do not agree.
I find no Board decisions supporting this viewpoint
which , if it were to prevail , would apparently require the
disestablishment of most safety committees in American
industry."
5 Asa result of a survey of the area a general wage raise was granted
6 A charge was filed with the Board shortly after the announcement of
the committee It did not come into existence and hence within the reach
of Section 8(a)(2)
7 Except one or two unexplained items in the minutes such as "need of
3. Other alleged acts of interference , restraint, and
coercion
Employee Dean High testified that shortly before the
election of September 2, he had a conversation with
Production Superintendent George Hill , during which
Hill said , in effect , that " if everything went right" he
hoped by Christmas Respondent would pay its skilled
labor $ 2 an hour instead of their prevailing rate of $1.50.
No mention was made of the Union . I do not find Hill's
statement , as related , constituted a promise of benefit to
the employees if the Union did not come into the plant.
On another occasion , according to High , when he asked
Hill about collective bargaining , Hill said in effect that he
"could help set it up ," but could not do so until "after the
union stuff was settled ." Assuming this statement was
made , I find it to be vague and ambiguous , and not viola-
tive of the Act. On still another occasion , according to
High, he went into Crocker 's office to tell him that the
employees were discussing collective bargaining, and
asked him how to go about " setting it up ." Crocker, in
reply, gave him the Board ' s address and telephone
number and suggested that the Board could answer his
questions . He added , according to High , that Respondent
would rather deal with its employees than with a union.
No promise of financial benefits, as alleged in the com-
plaint, was made.
I do not find that any of the statements attributed by
High to Hill and Crocker , assuming they were made,
were violative of the Act . I shall recommend that the
complaint herein be dismissed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Illinois Marble Company, Inc., is an employer
within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and is en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. Journeymen Stonecutters Association of North
America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent has not engaged in the unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and the entire record in this case, I
recommend that the complaint be dismissed in its en-
tirety.
RECOMMENDED ORDER IN THE
REPRESENTATION CASE
I do not find that any of the above-related activities of
Respondent, which I have found do not constitute unfair
labor practices , constitute meritorious objections to the
conduct of the election in Case 14-RC-5492.
an additional truck driver " and "convenience of scale placement ," previ-
ously adverted to, which may or may not have pertained to safety
9 I do not hold that the formation of a safety committee is not a proper
subject for bargaining with a collective -bargaining representative