Kentucky Utilities Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 31, 1949

83 N.L.R.B. 981 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of KENTUCKY UTILITIEs COMPANY, INC. and LOCAL
UNION No. 181, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS,
A. F. L.
Case No. 9-CA-57.Decided May 31, 1949
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On February 28, 1949, Trial Examiner James R. Hemingway 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 copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that
the Respondent had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair prac-
tices. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and a supporting brief. The General Counsel also filed lex-
ceptions.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report,
the exceptions, the brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner, with the modifications, additions, and corrections 2 set
forth below :
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in violation of section 8
(a) (1) of the Act. However, we base our finding exclusively upon the
following unlawful conduct of the Respondent: (a) the widespread
interrogation of employees concerning their union membership,
leadership, and activities, by James Hicks, assistant chief engineer, and
3 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act , as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-
member panel [ Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Gray].
I In footnote 11 of the Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner inadvertently stated
that "Hicks testified . . . .. The record shows, and we find, that Bunch so testified. The
Intermediate Report is corrected accordingly.
83 N. L. R. B., No. 139.
981
844340-50-vol. 83-03
982 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bryan Bunch, plant superintendent; 8 (b) the participation of Hicks
and Bunch in inducing employees to sign the letter addressed to Pres-
ident Watt, impliedly revoking the charging union's authority to repre-
sent employees; 4 (c) the promulgation of a rule prohibiting solicita-
tion of any kind and at any time on the Respondent's premises, includ-
ing non-working time of employees;' (d) the discriminatory, applica-
tion of the no-solicitation rule by the Respondent, in that it permitted
Hicks and Bunch to solicit signatures for the so-called Watt letter on
company time and property; 6 (e) the selection by Bunch of represent-
atives of employees to meet with President Watt to discuss employee
grievances; 7 (f) the granting of the $20 temporary increase in pay; 8
(g) the implied threats of reprisal which Hicks made to employees
Rowland and Motley.
The Respondent contends that the Trial Examiner found that the
Respondent violated the Act by calling a plant meeting of its employ-
ees. It does not appear that the Trial Examiner made such a finding.
In any event, we do not base our finding on any "compulsory audience"
doctrine.9 The Respondent also attacks the Trial Examiner's credit
bility findings. Absent a showing that such findings are clearly
erroneous, we shall not disturb them.1° Finally, the Respondent argues
that its activity in questioning employees as to union activities, and in
urging them to sign the Watt letter, is protected by Section 8 (c) of
the Act. This contention is without merit. We have frequently held
that employer interrogation of employees concerning union member-
ship and activities and employer solicitation of employees to repudiate
their union are coercive per se, and are not protected by Section 8 (c)
as an expression of "views, argument, or opinion" within the meaning
of that section. 11
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the,,case, and pursuant to Section 10
(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National
,Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Kentucky
' 8 Matter of Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company, 81 N. L. R B., No. 99 ; Matter
of Waynltne, Inc., 81 N . L. R. B. 511 ; Matter of Magnolia Cotton Mill Co., Inc., 79
N. L. R. B 91.
4 Matter o f Biggs Antique Company , Inc., 80 N. L. R. B. 345.-
5 Matter of American Book-Stratford Press, Inc., 80 N. L. B. B . 914; Matter of Allen-
Morrison Sign Co., 79 N. L. R. B. 903.
8 Matter of Macon Textiles Inc., 80 N. L. R. B . 1525; Matter of Allen-Morrison Sign Co.,
supra.
7 See Matter of Wrought Iron Range Company, 77 N. L. R. B. 487.
8Matter of ' Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company, supra ; Matter of Macon Tex-
tiles Inc., supra; Matter of J. C. Lewis Motor Company, 80 N. L. It. B . 1134; Matter of
Hudson Hostery Company, 72 N L. R B. 1434.
@ Matter of The Babcock & Wilcox Co , 77 N. L. R. B 577.
10 Matter of Opeltka Textile Mills, Inc., 81 N. L. R. B. 594.
11 See footnotes 3 and 4, supra. -
KENTUCKY UTILITIES COMPANY, INC. 983
Utilities Company, Inc., Lexington, Kentucky, and its officers , agents,
successors , and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interrogating its employees concerning their union member-
ship, leadership, or activities;
(b) Soliciting its employees to sign letters repudiating the authority
of Local Union No. 181, International Union of Operating Engineers,
A. F. L., or any other labor organization, to represent employees;
(c) Issuing or enforcing a rule prohibiting union solicitation or
activity on company premises during the employees' non-working
hours;
(d) Enforcing discriminatorily its no-solicitation rule;
(e) 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 Local Union No. 181, Interna-
tional Union of Operating Engineers, A. F. L., or any other labor
organization; to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities 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.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Rescind immediately its no-solicitation rule insofar as it pro-
hibits union solicitation and activity on company premises during the
employees' non-working time;
(b) Post at its Tyrone Power plant, copies of the notice attached
hereto and marked "Appendix A." 12 Copies of said notice, to be fur-
nished by the Regional Director for the Ninth Region, shall, after
being duly signed by a representative of the Respondent, be posted by
the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by
it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material;
(c) Notify the.Regional Director for the Ninth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
12 In the event that this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be inserted before the words, "A DECISION AND ORDER," the words, "A
DECREE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING."
984 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IT Is FURTHER ORDERED that , in all other respects, the complaint
herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
APPENDIX A
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, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union
membership, leadership, or activities. Y
WE WILL NOT solicit our employees to sign letters repudiating the
authority of LOCAL UNION No. 181, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
-OPERATING ENGINEERS, A. F. L., or any other labor organization
to represent them.
WE WILL rescind our no-solicitation rule, insofar as it prohibits
union solicitation or activity on company premises during em-
ployees' non-working hours.
WE WILL NOT enforce discriminatorily our no-solicitation rule.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organiza-
tion, to form labor organizations, to join or assist LocAL UNION
No. 181, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, A. F. L.
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities 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 agree-
ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition
of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
KENTUCKY UTILITIES COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
By ---------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated ------------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and
must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
KENTUCKY UTILITIES COMPANY, INC.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Lloyd R. Fraker, for the General Counsel.
Mr. William H. Townsend, of Lexington, Ky., for the Respondent.
Mr. Buryl Travis, of Lexington, Ky., for the Union.
Trial Examiner : James R. Hemingway.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
985
Upon a first amended charge filed on November 1, 1948, by Local Union No.
181, International Union of Operating Engineers , A. F. L., herein called the Union,
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board 1 by the Regional
Director for the Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio) issued his complaint, dated
November 19, 1948, against Kentucky Utilities Company, Inc., herein called
the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging
in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a)
(1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947,
61 Stat. 161, herein called the Act.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance
that commencing on or about May 8, 1948, the Respondent interrogated its em-
ployees as to union membership and activities ; circulated and requested or re-
quired its employees to sign a letter, addressed to the Respondent' s president,
purporting to express the confidence of the employees in him and requesting him to
continue to act as their bargaining agent ; promised benefits to said employees if
they would renounce their union allegiance and activities ; threatened reprisals
against said employees because of their union membership and activities ; and
interrogated said employees as to the names of the leaders in the union move-
ment. Copies of the complaint, the amended charge, and notice of hearing were
duly served upon the Respondent and the Union.
The Respondent's answer, filed on November 29, 1948, categorically denied
the alleged unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Lexington, Kentucky, on January
11 to 14, inclusive, 1949, before this Trial Examiner, duly designated by the
Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and the Respondent were repre-
sented by counsel, and the Union was represented by its business agent. All
parties were afforded opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues.
At the opening of the hearing the General Counsel moved to amend the com-
plaint by adding the following additional allegation of interference, restraint,
and coercion by the Respondent: "Circulating and requesting or requiring said
employees to sign a letter addressed to the Union disclaiming their member-
ship therein, and returning the initiation fee receipt which had been issued to
them by the Union." The motion was granted. A motion by Respondent's
counsel for a separation of witnesses was granted.
'Both the General Counsel and his representative at the hearing will herein be desig-
nated General Counsel . The National Labor Relations Board will be called the Board.
986 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Although counsel requested and were granted time for filing of briefs, notice
has since been received that no briefs would be filed with the Trial Examiner.
Upon the entire record in the case and upon his observation of the witnesses,
the Trial Examiner makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a Kentucky corporation, maintaining an office in Lexington,
Kentucky, is engaged in the business of producing, transmitting, and distributing
electrical energy and of producing and distributing gas. The Respondent's
distribution lines connect with the distribution lines of the South Fulton Power
and Light Company and the Dixie Power Company, both of which companies are
utility operators located in the State of Tennessee. The Respondent's operations
cover approximately 70 of the 120 counties in the State of Kentucky.
In the operation of its business, the Respondent sells electric energy to, and
purchases such energy from, the Tennessee Valley Authority and Central Illinois
Public Service Company, which are located in the States of Tennessee and
Illinois respectively. The Respondent likewise sells electric energy to Old
Dominion Power Company, which is located in the State of Virginia. The
Respondent sells substantial amounts of electric energy to the Illinois Central
Railroad and to the Louisville and Nashville Railway Company, for their shops
and operation of their signal systems and to the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad
for use in its railway stations and other buildings located in towns in which the
Respondent operates. It also sells electric energy to the Western Union Tele-
graph Company,' Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company,' and the
Lexington Telephone Company.' Further, the Respondent serves radio broad-
casting stations located in towns and cities where it operates, including stations
WLAP and WLEX in Lexington, Kentucky.
During the 12-month period preceding January 11, 1949, the Respondent pur-
chased materials and supplies, consisting principally of coal, electric energy,
and operating and constructive materials, of a value in excess of $8,000.000,
of which 55 percent came from sources outside the State of Kentucky ; and
during the same period its sales were in excess of $18,000,000, of which at least
2 percent were made to customers outside the State of Kentucky. The Respondent
did not contest jurisdiction.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local Union No. 181, International Union of Operating Engineers, affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to
membership employees of the Respondent.
2 Found to be engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations
Act in innumerable cases, ex . gr., 7 N. L. R. B. 974 and 58 N. L . R. B. 1283.
8 Found to be engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations
Act in 35 N. L. R. B. 621 and 55 N. L . R. B. 1058.
4 Found to be engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations
Act in 39 N . L. R. B. 1130.
KENTUCKY UTILITIES COMPANY, INC. 987
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint , and coercion
1. The chronology of events
The Respondent, among other power plants, operates the Tyrone Power Plant
in Woodford County on the Kentucky River about 7 miles from Versailles, Ken-
tucky, where it employs upwards of 40 employees. It utilizes both low and high
pressure steam and generates electricity at 13,800 volts.
On Friday night, May 7, 1948, at a union meeting in Lexington, Kentucky, a
substantial majority of the employees of the Tyrone plant joined the Union.
At about 8: 30 o'clock the next morning employee Thomas Motley went to the
office of Bryan Bunch, the plant superintendent, and told Bunch that he had
been designated as a committee of one fo notify him that a majority of the
employees had joined the Union.' Bunch said that he felt disappointed that
Motley had not kept him informed as to what was going on and had not come
to him with grievances before joining the Union but he said that he felt he could
work with the men either with or without a union.
James Hicks, assistant chief engineer (assistant to Vice President E. W.
Brown), who supervises the Tyrone and other plants of the Respondent, heard
by way of "the grapevine" that there had been a union meeting on Friday
night. On Saturday morning he went to the Tyrone plant, hereafter called
the plant, and was informed by Bunch of what Motley had reported. Hicks
sent for Motley to come to Bunch's office. When Motley came, Hicks asked
Motley what he knew about the union movement and if he was for the Union .6
Motley replied that 37 or 38 of the employees had joined the night before.? The
rest of this interview was not testified to.
Beginning at this time, Hicks and Bunch, questioned the men about their
union membership and views.
5 Motley was called by the General Counsel as an "adverse" [hostile] witness for cross-
examination. His testimony as to the events herein related was given reluctantly. Motley
sought to repudiate an affidavit which he had previously made by testifying that he was
drunk and he did not know what he was saying. There was credible evidence by other
witnesses that Motley did not even have a smell of liquor on his breath at the time and
Motley's own testimony makes It appear extremely Improbable that his mental faculties
were impaired at that time. The undersigned does not credit Motley's testimony that he
was under the Influence of liquor at the time he made the affidavit. The affidavit was
received in evidence as past recorded recollection of those matters which Motley testified
he could not remember. In view of the fact that Motley's reluctance appeared to the Trial
Examiner to stem from a desire not to embarrass the Respondent, Motley's reluctant testi-
mony as to the statements of Respondent's officials are deemed reliable as far as they go.
But the Trial Examiner believes it not unlikely that some of the statements contained in
Motley's affidavit may have been based on emotional feeling or conclusions of Motley,
and therefore no findings are made thereon except where they are substantiated by credible
testimony.
e This finding Is based on Hicks' testimony.
4 Neither Motley nor Hicks testified as to all that was said at this time. Bunch was not
present during this part of Hicks' discussion with Motley. Hicks testified that he talked
to Motley at this time for 10 or 15 minutes. Motley testified that Hicks and Bunch had
him in the office for about 3% hours. Motley exhibited considerable reluctance to testify
as to what was said. Asked if Hicks and Bunch had tried to get him to withdraw from
the Union, Motley replied, "No, I don't think so." The question was repeated and Motley
answered, "We was just talking about it."
988 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On Saturday Hicks called Seth Botts; chief electrician, to Bunch's office and
according to Bott's credible testimony, asked why Botts had joined a Union
and what the Union could gain for him s
On the same day, in the plant, Hicks asked employee Allen Rowland if he
had jumped the fence, meaning joined the Union. Rowland replied that he
had gone with the rest of them. Hicks then said that he and Bunch had been
sold down the river. Rowland quoted Hicks as saying, "You must remember
one thing. Bryan [Bunch] and I hold all the jobs down here." Hicks denied
having made this statement. Because of his manner of testifying,° Hicks failed
to inspire confidence in his denials. The undersigned therefore credits Rowland's
testimony.
Also on that day, Hicks remarked to employee William Dunn, "I thought you
had different stripes." When Dunn asked what Hicks meant, Hicks asked if
he had joined the Union.'0 Dunn replied that he had, and Hicks remarked, "All
I can say is you sold Bryan [Bunch] down the river."
Within the week after May 8, Bunch had conversations with many employees
in which he questioned them about their membership or reason for joining the
Union.
On Saturday, May 8, Bunch asked employees Wilkes Utterback and Howard
Asher if they had joined the Union, and when they admitted that they had he
asked why. Utterback replied that a majority wanted the Union and they went
along with the majority. Bunch said he wished they had come to him before
joining the Union as he thought he would have been able to correct their
grievances.
About Tuesday, May 10, Bunch passed the home of the above-mentioned Row-
land, who was in the yard, and asked if or why Rowland had joined the Union 11
Rowland quoted Bunch as asking what he thought he had to gain by joining."
Rowland is the nephew of Bunch's former boss, and Bunch remarked that if
"Mr. Joe," Rowland's uncle, learned that Rowland had joined the Union it would
hurt him and that he would not learn it from him [Bunch].
On Monday or Tuesday of the same week, Bunch called employee Herbert
Brackett to his office and asked if he had joined the Union.18 Brackett replied
that he had. Bunch then said that as far as he knew Brackett had not violated
any promise or pledge he had made at the time he was hired, referring to Brackett's
promise, made when he was hired, not to agitate for a union but reserving the
8 The form of the question indicates knowledge of Bott's union membership The under-
signed infers that Hicks acquired the information during his questioning of Motley
° On cross-examination relating to subjects on which Hicks was obviously disinclined to
make revelations, he was disposed to fence with counsel and to give indirect or evasive
answers. Some of Hicks' denials seemed to be denials of form rather than substance
10 Dunn quoted Hicks as asking, "Did you go crazy like the rest of them?" Hicks denied
that he had made "a statement like that" but admitted that Dunn told him at that time
that he had joined the Union. Hicks' denial is found to be a denial of the words used only.
Whatever his words, Hicks was asking if Dunn had joined the Union.
11 Rowland testified that Bunch said, "Allen, I am not asking you if you joined the Union
but I am asking you why." Hicks testified that he had asked if, rather than why, Rowland
had joined the Union.
"Bunch testified he was quite sure he had not asked what Rowland had to gain by
joining. Although Bunch may not have used these words, the Trial Examiner believes and
finds that Bunch was trying to learn what motivated the union movement. The question
is not unlike the inquiries Bunch made of other employees.
"This finding is based principally on Brackett 's testimony . Bunch 's recollection of this
conversation did not appear to be too clear, but so far as it went it tended to corroborate
Hackett's testimony.
KENTUCKY UTILITIES COMPANY, INC. 989
right to go along with the rest if a union was- organized.14 Brackett quoted
Bunch as saying that the Company would fight the Union.16 While Bunch may
not have used these words the undersigned finds that Bunch indicated that the
Respondent was opposed to the Union.
Employee Ray Nabors testified that Bunch came to him on the premises out-
side the plant shortly after May -7 and asked if he had joined the Union, that
he had answered affirmatively, and that Bunch had then asked what benefits he
thought he might get by joining the Union and "What gripes or anything I thought
wasn't fair." Bunch conceded that he might have asked Nabors if he had
joined the Union but denied that he had asked him what benefits he expected.
As previously found, Bunch may not have asked in terms what benefits the men.
expected from the Union, but he did believe that the men joined the Union be-
cause of some omission on his or the Respondent's part and he wanted to
learn what dissatisfaction had caused the men to turn to the Union.
On Saturday, May 8, after Dunn had been asked by Hicks if he had joined the
Union, Bunch commented to Dunn in the turbine room that he.thought the men
had gone behind his back to gain things that he could probably have worked out
for them himself and that he wished they had given him the chance to do so.
About May 10 Bunch met employee Charles Baccus on the plant grounds and
in a conversation about the recent events remarked that he supposed Baccus
had joined the Union. Baccus replied that he had, and Bunch said that he
hoped that the attitude of the men toward him had not changed but that he
thought it already had, that everyone had shut-up and drawn an iron curtain
between him and the men.
On the same day Bunch spoke to employees Charles Main and Joe Williams
and asked why they had joined the Union instead of coming to him with what-
ever they had on their minds. Bunch made substantially the same statement
to employee James Lewis about the same time.
Employee James Downey testified that, about May 14, Bunch stopped him
outside the plant and said he wanted to talk to him about "this union business
starting up down there." He then quoted Bunch as saying he thought the em-
ployees had done him a dirty trick by starting up the Union and that he was
going to have to pass some of them up. Bunch denied that he had made any
such statements. The statements denied by Bunch are out of keeping with
Bunch's character as it appeared to the Trial Examiner and with the type of
remarks he is found to have made, and the undersigned credits his deniaL10
That conversation about the union organization occurrence is not denied.
Employee Robert Harrod testified that on May 8 he talked with Bunch in the
coal yard of the plant in the presence of five or six other employees. He quoted
Bunch as saying, "You guys sold me down the river. You convicted me without
a trial." He also quoted Bunch as saying that he had been to Lexington to try
14 Bunch admitted this part of the conversation.
16 Bunch was not asked if he had made this statement to Brackett . He was asked if he
had made such a statement to Rowland and he replied that he did not make a statement
like that.
10 Although Bunch appeared to be somewhat ill at ease on the witness stand , he appeared
to be endeavoring to give truthful answers. He appeared to the Trial Examiner to be of
a mild disposition and not vindictive . It Is the Trial Examiner 's deduction that insofar as
Bunch participated in a counter -union movement, he was acting because of Hick's Instruc-
tions. Although Downey appeared to be a truthful witness, the undersigned believes that
he misunderstood Bunch or perhaps confused a conversation he had with someone else with
the one he had with Bunch.
990 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to resign his job. Bunch denied making these statements. None of the other
employees allegedly present was called to testify. Although Bunch did not deny
that he had spoken to the men in the coal yard, the undersigned believes and
finds that Harrod was mistaken either as to the speaker or the expressions.17
Harrod testified that about a week and a half or 2 weeks later Bunch called him
into his office and accused him of being the biggest union agitator at the plant.
Harrod said he knew who told Bunch, indicating it was someone whom he had
been ribbing. Bunch told him, according to Harrod, that he might be wrong, and
Harrod replied that he did not think so. According to Harrod, Bunch then told
-him to-be careful whom he talked to. Bunch denied that he had called Harrod
the biggest union agitator, but he confirmed that there was such a conversation.
He also denied telling Harrod that he should be careful to whom he talked.
'Bunch testified that he had had a conversation with Harrod about organizing in
which he said that Harrod's work had not been coming •up to standard and that
they would have to cut out the discussions on the job, union or otherwise. The
undersigned concludes that, making allowances for variances in terminology,
the conversation may be reconstructed from the testimony,of both witnesses and
-that Bunch was in effect warning Harrod not to solicit during working time.
Several days after the announcement of the union organization, Bunch called
ra meeting of all the employees at the plant during working hours. Between 35
and- 40 employees attended. Bunch opened the meeting and then turned it
'over to Hicks. Hicks expressed his opinion that the employees had not been loyal
to the Respondentl° He asked whether the men had anything against him or
Bunch and said he wanted them to state what they ha"ti• oh' their minds 20 Hicks
then called on each employee to state his gripes or grievances. A majority of the
employees made statements, among which was a desire for higher pay. Hicks
talked of the money that the Respondent had borrowed: to,:build -the plant and
told the men that they could not get any big raises in the next few years, re-
: minded them of the danger in high voltage electricity and high pressure steam
,and the seriousness of accidents, urged them to get back to normal and concen-
trate on the operations of the plant, and suggested that they might find "some
;easy way out." 21 -
The day after this meeting, Hicks, speaking to Motley, said that there must
shave been leaders in the union. movement and that he knew what to do with
them 22 Motley replied that there were no leaders. Motley testified that he
`might have told Hicks that it looked like 15 or 20 started all at once.
"The statement about selling Bunch down the river Is one that Hicks admittedly made
more than once. Bunch denied the use of the expression.
18 Some employees who were scheduled to be off that day were called to'the-meeting. • The
'date of this meeting Is difficult to fix because of the wide variation of, dates estimated by
-the witnesses . It is found that it occurred between May 11 and 15, 1948.
10 This Is based on Baccus' credited testimony.
20 According to Botts, a witness for the Respondent, Hicks asked what was wrong with
,him and Bunch, that they did not. do right by the employees, that the employees 'would go
,down and join the Union. •
21 The quoted phrase is taken from the testimony of Berry Taylor , a witness for, the
}Respondent.
22 This finding Is based on Motley 's reluctant testimony . Hicks denied that he had asked
Motley if there were "ringleaders" but did not remember if he had said that there must have
been leaders. He denied that he told Motley he knew what to do with leaders of a union
movement . His denial is not credited.
11
KENTUCKY UTILITIES COMPANY, INC. 991
A day or two later a typewritten letter was found on the turbine operator's
desk by Botts, the chief electrician. It read :
Mr. R. M. Watt, President
Kentucky Utilities Company
159 West Main Street
Lexington, Ky.
Dear Mr. Watt:
We, the employees of the Tyrone Power Station, by this letter, wish to
express to you our confidence in you as President of our Company, and
desire that you continue to represent us in all wage and welfare policies.
We will put forth our best efforts to make the Tyrone Generating Station
your most reliable and efficient station.
Yours very truly,
The letter was unsigned. Botts called Bunch and asked if he knew anything
about it. Bunch said he did not. Botts then took the letter to Bunch's office
where he and Bunch discussed the letter in Hicks' presence. Botts did not
remember whether or not Bunch had asked him to come to the office. Bunch
told Botts that it would be a mighty fine gesture if he would sign the letter
and send it to Watt. Motley came in. It does not appear why. The discussion
continued. The record is barren of detail as to what was said during this
discussion, but it resulted in Botts' and Motley's signing the letter. Botts called
his assistant, Taylor, to Bunch's office, showed him the letter, and asked him
what he thought of it. Taylor said he thought it was misleading, but because
Botts and Motley had signed he signed, too. Motley and Botts then took the
letter and began to circulate it among the employees.
A few hours after signing the letter, Taylor asked Hicks who wrote the letter
that he had signed. Hicks said that he did not know 23 Taylor asked Hicks if
the letter was the "easy way out" that he had spoken of, and Hicks replied that
it could be called that.
During the circulation of the letter, some employees signed and some refused
to do sot' The letter found its way to Bunch. He and Hicks decided to call
the employees in for individual talks. For several days they called employees
individually to the office, talked to them, and showed them the letter, hoping
to get a majority to sign. According to Bunch, he talked to "virtually everyone
in the plant." Some employees signed. Others declined. The latter were told
to think it over and were then called in the following day and asked if they had
changed their minds. During these talks with the men, Hicks and Bunch
explained that they planned to send the letter with a group of employees to meet
with President Watt.
When Brackett was called in for his talk with Hicks, Hicks mentioned an
incident that occurred after he and others had been repairing a Bailey meter.
When the steam was turned on, it "shot" the mercury in the meter. Brackett
quoted Hicks as saying that a thing like that could cost him his job. Hicks
denied this and testified to saying merely that it could have resulted in a bad
accident. The undersigned believes that Brackett misinterpreted Hicks' state-
ment and that Hicks did not say that such a thing would cause him to lose his
23 The evidence fails to establish authorship of this letter.
24 Motley took the letter to Rowland's home. Rowland refused to sign but made a copy
of the letter.
992 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
job25 Brackett also testified that Hicks at this time told him that if he was
not satisfied with his job he (Hicks) could transfer him to the Green River plant
on construction work, where, ,he would have received 40 cents an hour more than
he was then making on maintenance work. Hicks testified that his offer to
Brackett was made after Brackett had remarked, "Maybe I made a mistake
in staying here on operations. I am really a construction man. Maybe I should
have gone with Bates and Rogers to Green River." The undersigned accepts
Hicks' explanation and infers that Brackett's remark was prompted by Hicks'
criticism of the repair work on the Bailey meter. Hicks showed Brackett the
letter to Watt and said that he would like to have his signature on it, that if he
signed it others would be induced thereby to sign it ' Brackett refused to sign,
and Hicks told him to think it over. Hicks later called Brackett back and asked
if he had changed his mind. Brackett replied that he had not. Hicks said that
he planned to send the letter with a group of employees to Watt the next
morning.
Hicks also called Harrod to Bunch's office." He asked Harrod what kind of
a job he had had before coming to the Respondent's employ. Harrod replied that
he had sold Bibles. Hicks said, as quoted by Harrod, "Well, you believe in
brotherly love and loving thy neighbor as thyself." Harrod affirmed that he did,
and Hicks said , "If the Company trusts you with a' lot of equipment down
here, . . . we think you should trust us and we would like to have your loyalty."
Hicks inquired of Harrod if he liked his job. Harrod, who was shoveling coal
at the time, replied that he did not. Hicks explained the policy of promotion
from the ranks. Toward the end of the interview, Hicks shoved the Watt letter
across the desk and told Harrod to read it. When Harrod had done so Hicks
asked if he saw anything wrong with it. Harrod replied he did not. Hicks
handed him a pen and Harrod signed.
Bunch called employees Joe Williams and Charles Main to his office, showed
them the Watt letter, and said he would like to see their names on it. Main asked
if it was a matter of signing or losing his job . Bunch assured him that no one
would lose his job.' Main then refused to sign. Bunch told Williams that he
would be doing him a favor if he would sign . Williams refused to sign and
20 In the general meeting Hicks had warned the employees that an accident might be fatal
in handling high voltage electricity and high pressure steam. It is probable that Hicks
made some such statement to Brackett as that an accident resulting from lack of concen-
tration could mean the end of him or could be his last and that Brackett interpreted this
to mean that the Respondent would terminate his employment.
26 During the general plant meeting, an employee named Ardery had named Brackett as
one of the leaders in the union movement . When Ardery began to make personal accusa-
tions , Hicks stopped him.
77 Hicks testified that these talks were for the purpose of getting acquainted with the men,
to "help them get oriented ," to be sure they knew what "their company policy stood for"
and what the "hopes and aspirations of the company" were. The getting of employees to
sign the Watt letter was a secondary purpose, Hicks testified.
se This is based on Main 's testimony , corroborated by Bunch 's testimony. On direct ex-
amination for the Respondent , Bunch was asked whether he had said once or more than
once that no one would lose his job . Bunch answered , "Well , I should say that I told every-
one that they wouldn 't lose their jobs over it." He was not asked where or when. No
other employees gave testimony of being so told . Because of this, because of the context
of this answer with other testimony of Bunch , and because of the manner and form in
which the answer was given , the Trial Examiner does not construe the answer to mean
that Bunch made a general announcement to the employees . Rather it is construed to
mean that Bunch made that statement to individual employees only when the question was
raised in his conversation with them.
KENTUCKY UTILITIES COMPANY, INC. 993
Bunch said , according to Williams, "Joe, if you will sign it and I can ever do
you a favor, I will." Williams asked if that meant that Bunch would withhold
a favor when he might be in a position to do him one, and Bunch replied that it
did not mean that and that, whether or not Williams signed , they would remain
friends and there would be no hard feelings. Williams refused to sign. Later,
Bunch came to Main and Williams in the plant and said that the letter was
going to Watt that day and asked if they had changed their minds about signing.
They said they had not. Bunch said that he was sorry, that they had a majority
of the employees' names on it, and that he would like to have everyone's name
on it.
Hicks made the arrangements for the meeting with Watt and Bunch designated
certain employees as a delegation to meet Watt at his office in Lexington. The
delegation did not, however, itself take the letter. No testimony was given to
show what happened to the letter. In addition to the delegation of employees,
Hicks and Vice President Brown met with Watt on about May 21. Watt made
a speech to the employees in which he said that the men in the Mountain Divi-
sion of the Respondent had a union but that there was cause for it there because
of supervision at Pineville, Kentucky. He told them about the financial condi-
tion of the company,, said that the company had expanded and was short of
funds, said that he did not see any raises in the near future, and said that the
policy letters of the company should be renewed. Watt asked the employees
to tell him the highlights of the grievances that had been discussed at the plant
meeting presided over by Bunch and Hicks. The Employees made their griev-
ances known. Watt said that there were two or three things that he could see
needed immediate action and that he would investigate and work on the matter.
One of these things, Watt said, was the expense of traveling to the plant. Many
of the men traveled from Lexington or other towns some distance from the plant,
and some said that it cost them $25 a month for gasoline and oil.
Within a month following this meeting, Bunch announced to the employees
that effective July 1, 1948, they would receive a temporary increase of $20 per
month for the next year to help meet the expense of transportation and high
rents. The increase was put into effect as announced.29
About August 19, 1948, employees Taylor and Motley prepared and circulated
for signatures of employees a letter addressed to the Union which read :
GENTLEMEN : We, the undersigned , do this date hereby disclaim any and all
membership with the Internation [sic] Union of Operating Engineers . And we,
the undersigned, are returning herewith initiation fee receipts as issued to us by
Local Union No. 181.
Enclosures.
They procured 24 signatures and attached 17 receipts. There is no evidence
that management in any way participated in the preparation or circulation of
this letter or that it even knew that it was being done. The Respondent's
responsibility therefore depends entirely upon whether or not Motley was a
supervisor whose acts were attributable to the Respondent. Although Motley
had some supervisory functions, it is not clear that he had such supervisory
powers as to make the Respondent responsible for his acts. But in any event
it is unnecessary to decide whether or not Motley was a supervisor within the
29 Employee Dunn testified that there was a second increase given sometime in July 1948
which was "kind of a general raise," and that in his case this was about 10 cents an hour.
Because of the vagueness of the testimony, the undersigned does not make any finding as to
a second general increase
994 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
meaning of the Act. Inasmuch as the Union accepted Motley as a member, and,
at a representation case hearing on November 9, 1948, took the position that the
maintenance foreman (Motley was the only one) should be included in the
bargaining unit,30 the Respondent would not be chargeable with statements or
acts which would be proper for him as a member of that unit, in the absence
of a showing that the Respondent encouraged, authorized, or ratified his
conducts'
The Respondent has a rule of long standing against solicitation which is posted
in all its plants. The notice reads : "No solicitation of any kind permitted on
these premises. Safety to employees and to services requires their undivided
attention." Bunch understood this to prohibit solicitation of all kinds, including
solicitation for the Union, on the Respondent's property.
Employee Lewis testified that in October or November 1948 Bunch called him
to the office and said, "I understand, Lewis, that you are soliciting for the
Union," or something of the kind ; that he had told Bunch that he did not believe
le was, no more than anyone else, and that Bunch had then said, "All right.
I want you to know, Lewis, that I am boss down here." Bunch emphatically
denied that he had accused Lewis of soliciting union memberships. He testified
that one of the men on Lewis' shift had reported to him that he had been
intimidated, that he had called Lewis to the office, and that he told Lewis that he
would not "have that going on on the job," that he was boss there and he wanted
Lewis to understand that. Although Bunch's testimony is credited, it is still
conceded that the incident occurred, and the undersigned received the impression
from Bunch's testimony that Bunch was denying that he had spoken in the
form of an accusation rather than denying that solicitation was a subject
of the conversation. Lewis was a credible witness and the undersigned find
that Bunch gave Lewis reason to believe that he was objecting to solicitation as
such on the job and not merely to the manner in which Lewis had talked to a
fellow employee.
About November 1, 1948, Bunch engaged employee Brackett in a conversation
on the plant grounds. As related by Brackett, Bunch said, "Herb, I hate to
bring this up as much as anybody out here does. We had hoped it was for-
gotten and things were going to be normal again out here. But I seem to have to
mention this to you because l 'understand that these unfair labor practice charges
were filed in your name." Brackett said he knew nothing about it. Bunch
apparently did not accept this as the fact, for he then said, "Well, you can
withdraw those charges if you will." Brackett reiterated that he knew nothing
about it. Bunch continued, according to Brackett, "We had hoped to get along
out here again. We had hoped to get along out here without a union and I
don't know what to do. These charges have been brought over there and I wish
you would think it over and see if you can maybe have these charges with-
drawn." ' Bunch admitted having a conversation with Brackett about the
charge. He denied that he told Brackett to withdraw the charge but admitted
that he may have said he would like to have him withdraw it. Even by Brackett's
$" Matter of Kentucky Ut%l%ties Company, Inc., 9-RC-161, 81 N. L. R. B. 1006.
=Matter of Mississippi Valley Structural Steel Company, 64 N. L. R. B. 78 ; Matter of
The Hartford Courant Company, 64 N. L. R. B. 213; Matter of R. R. Donnelly and Sons
Company, 60 N. L. R. B. 635.
$' Brackett had not filed any charge with the Board , but his name appeared on the face,
of the original charge at the foot of a letter quoted therein.
KENTUCKY UTILITIES COMPANY, INC . 995
testimony, Bunch did not tell [order] Brackett to withdraw the charge. The
undersigned finds that the conversation took place substantially as related by
Brackett but finds nothing coercive in Bunch's statements.
2. Concluding findings
From the time it learned of the organization of its employees, the Respondent
set about to undo that which it regarded as inimical to its interests. The Re-
spondent's questioning of employees as to their union membership and views
(conduct repeatedly condemned as coercive and violative of the Act,' and so
found here) initiated the Respondent's campaign against the organization of its
employees.
Having learned that the majority had chosen the Union as their collective
bargaining representative, the Respondent called a meeting in the plant and
asked employees individually to state their grievanceg. This was designed to
enable the Respondent to forestall bargaining with the Union by settling in
advance, through direct dealing with employees, their principal grievances or
demands. Following as this meeting did, Hicks' and Bunch's expressions of
dismay and disapproval of their joining the Union and the comments of Bunch
to several of the employees, including Dunn and Utterback to the effect that if
the employees had come to him before joining the Union he thought he could
have corrected their grievances, the employees would have been justified in
construing Hicks' remarks concerning the employees' disloyalty and an easy
way out, the Respondent's concern with the employees' grievances, and his
questions regarding their grievances in the meeting as an indication that the
Respondent would not deal with the Union but would probaby grant certain
benefits if the employees would drop the Union.
The Respondent next undertook to effect what was tantamount to a revoca-
tion of the Union's authority by soliciting the employees to sign the letter to
President Watt expressing the employees' "desire that you continue to repre-
sent us in all wage and welfare policies." " It is not material that the Respond-
ent may not have prepared the letter, and it is not material that the Respondent
made no express threats at the time it requested the signature of each employee"
"Matter of Magnolia Cotton Mill Co., Inc., 79 N. L. R. B. 91 ; Matter of Wytheville
Knitting Mills, Inc., 78 N. L. R. B. 640; Matter of Sohio Pipe Line Company, 75 N. L. R. B.
858; Matter of Sewell Manufacturing Company, 72 N. L R . B. 85; Matter of Wadesboro
Full-Fashioned Hosiery Mills, Inc., 72 N. L. R. B. 1064; Matter of William F. Huffman,
d/b/a Radio Station WFHR, 71 N. L. R. B. 518; Matter of Minnesota Mining & Manu-
facturing Company, 81 N. L. R B. No. 99.
" Several of the employees testified that they understood the letter to be in conflict with
their designation of the Union as their representative.
"Matter of Biggs Antique Company, Inc, 80 N. L. R. B. 345. By Hicks' statement to
Rowland that he and Bunch held all the jobs at the plant and by his statement to Motley
that he knew what to do with the leaders, the Respondent did make implied threats which
were in the minds of the employees at the time they were asked to sign the letter. Before
May 7, 1948, the date he joined the Union, Motley had supervised both the maintenance
men and the coal-handling crew, a total of 16 men. According to Motley's affidavit, made
on July 20, 1948, confirmed by his testimony, the Respondent removed the coal-handling
crew from his supervision between those two dates, leaving 4 maintenance men under his
direction. Because the matter was not litigated to show the exact time or reason for this
change, no finding of discrimination is made, but from the testimony and from Motley's
manner in testifying, the Trial Examiner deduces and finds that Motley believed his part
in the union movement was the cause for this reduction in the number of men under his
supervision.
996 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Respondent not only permitted employees to circulate this letter during
working time,' contrary to its own otherwise enforced rule against solicitation
of any kind in the plant,"' but did, itself, actively participate in the solicitation
of signatures during working time by the calling of employees to the office one
or two at a time, presenting the letter to them for signature, and following up
those employees who declined to sign the first time." Although Hicks and Bunch
avoided using language which expressed a demand, they left no doubt in the
minds of employees that they were requesting them to sign in the interests of the
Respondent . Hicks' reply to Taylor's question identified the letter as the
Respondent's concept of "an easy way out" of the Union. Such participation by
the Respondent in inducing the employees to sign an implied revocation of the
Union's authority and such disparate application of the rule against solicitation
constituted an interference with the rights of the employees guaranteed in
0Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act '
When a majority of the employees had signed the letter, the Respondent
arranged a meeting of President Watt with a delegation of employees selected
by Bunch.40 At this meeting Watt intimated that a union was unnecessary to
the Tyrone plant, asked for an enumeration of the employees' grievances and held
out an expectation of benefit, including an increase in pay to defray transporta-
tion expenses. The Respondent-chosen delegation in effect constituted a labor
organization for the purpose of presenting to the Respondent the employee's
demands regarding wages and working conditions. By effecting a revocation of
the Union's authority and by choosing the representative of the employees and
dealing therewith, the Respondent interfered with the employees' statutory
rights and thereby violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
The $20 per month increase in pay which the Respondent thereafter granted
the employees was, under the circumstances leading to it, clearly motivated by
the desire to induce the employees to forego any further resort to the Union.
Hence, it was a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.41
The Respondent may not have promulgated its rule against solicitation with
the object of forestalling union solicitation. Yet as it reads and as it Is.
interpreted by Bunch, the rule unduly restricts the employees organizational
rights during their non-working time on the Respondent's premises. Thus it
interferes with the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act in violation of
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
00 Cf Matter of Lindley Rom & Paper Company, 73 N. L. R. B. 553.
31 Cf. Matter of Allen-Morrison Sign Co., Inc., 79 N. L. R. B. 903.
38 Employee Baccus testified that he signed the letter because he thought it was a safe
thing to do in case there were any reprisals:
"' Matter of Biggs Antique Company, Inc., 80 N. L. R. B 345 ; Matter of The Middle
West Corporation, Kentucky Utilities Company, et al., 28 N. L. R. B 540; Matter of Keith
Furnace Company , 73 N. L . R. B. 754; Matter of L. B. Hartz Stores, 71 N. L. R. B. 848;
Matter of Brown Garment Manufacturing Company, 62 N. L. R. B . 857; Matter of Allen-
Morrison Sign Co ., Inc., 79 N. L. R. B. 903; Matter of Automatic Screw Machine Company,
52 N. L. R. B. 488; Matter of Consolidated Machine Tool Corporation , 67 N. L. R. B. 737,
enf'd as mod . 163 F. ( 2d) 376 (C. A. 2).
41 From the fact that Bunch and Hicks told the employees that the letter would go to
President Watt, that Hicks made the arrangements for the meeting with Watt, the fact
that Hicks was present at the meeting , the fact that Watt conducted the meeting along
lines coinciding with the purpose of the letter, and the fact that Bunch and Hicks were
the last persons revealed by the evidence to have had custody or control of the letter, the
inference is drawn that Watt either received the letter or was informed of it by Hicks
before he talked with the delegation.
41 Matter of The Kentucky Uttillties Company, 76 N. L. R. B . 845; Matter of Waynlsne,
Inc, 81 N. L. R B. 511 , Matter of L B. Hartz Stores , 71 N. L. R B. 848.
KENTUCKY UTILITIES COMPANY , INC. 997
Although the legal phraseology of the letter of revocation of union membership,
the authorship of which was claimed by Taylor and Motley , raises some doubt
as to the truth of their testimony , the General Counsel failed to prove that the
Respondent participated in the preparation of the letter or that it licensed the
circulation thereof , and the undersigned finds no violation of the Act on this
allegation of the complaint.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, above , occurring in
connection with the operations of the 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 free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It has been found that by the following conduct the Respondent has interfered
with , restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act :
1. Questioning its employees regarding their union membership and attitude
and the identity of the leaders in the union movement.
2. Participating in the solicitation of the signatures of employees to a letter
which impliedly revoked the authority of the Union to represent the employees
and knowingly permitting the solicitation of signatures on such letter by em-
ployees during working hours in contravention to its otherwise enforced rule
against solicitation.
3. Making implied threats of reprisals to employees.
4. Giving employees to understand that they could expect benefits by fore-
going the Union and placing their welfare in the hands of the Respondent's
president.
5. Giving a substantial increase in compensation to the employees for the
purpose of extinguishing further interest in, or resort to , the Union.
6. Promulgating a rule against solicitation on the employer 's premises without
regard to whether or not such solicitation occurs during working time or during
the employees ' own time.`
On the facts of this case considered by itself the undersigned would recommend
merely that the Respondent cease and desist from like or related conduct rather
than recommend the broad cease and desist order . But the Respondent in the
past has shown a disposition to disregard the purposes of the Act generally,"
indicating the likelihood of the commission of other unfair labor practices in the
future. Accordingly , in addition to recommending that the Respondent cease
and desist from the specific unfair labor practices which it is found herein that the
Respondent has committed , the Trial Examiner will recommend that the Repond-
ent cease and desist from in any other manner interfering with , restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
42 Any statements or acts of Respondent 's supervisors and officials heretofore related
which are not included in this list are not found to be unfair labor practices.
48 Matter of The Kentucky Utilities Company, 76 N. L. R. B. 845 ; Matter of Kentucky
Utilities Company, 58 N. L. R. B. 335; Matter of The Middle West Corporation, Kentucky
Utilities Company, et at., 28 N. L. R. B. 540.
844340-50-vol 83-64
998 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It will further be recommended that the Respondent rescind immediately the
rule against solicitation insofar as it prohibits union activity and solicitation
on company property during employees' non-working time.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local Union No. 181, International Union of Operating Engineers, affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are, unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under-
signed recommends that the Respondent, Kentucky Utilities Company, Inc., and
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) The conduct herein found violative of the Act and from in-any other
manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the right to
self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Local Union No.
181, International Union of Operating Engineers,- A. F: L., or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in collective activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effec-
tuate the policies of the Act:
• (a) Rescind immediately the rule against solicitation insofar as it prohibits
union activity and solicitation on company property, during the employees' non-
working time ;
(b) Post immediately at its Tyrone plant copies of the notice attached hereto
and marked "Appendix A." Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio), shall, after being duly signed
by the Respondent's representative be posted by the Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are custom-
arily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material ;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio) in
writing within twenty (20) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate
Report of what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before twenty (20) days from the
date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report the Respondent notifies the said
Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommenda•
tions, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respond-
ent to take the action aforesaid.
KENTUCKY UTILITIES COMPANY, INC. 999
As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board-Series 5, as amended August 18, 1948, any party may,
within twenty (20) days from the date of service of the order transferring the
case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.45 of said Rules and Regulations, file
with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D. C., an original and
six copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Interme-
diate Report and Recommended Order or to any other part of the record or pro-
ceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon, to-
gether with the original and six copies of a brief in support thereof, and any
party may, within the same period, file an original and six copies of a brief in
support of the Intermediate Report and Recommended Order. Immediately upon
the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the party filing the same
shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties. Statements of excep-
tions and briefs shall designate by precise citation the portions of the record
relied upon and shall be legibly printed or mimeographed, and if mimeographed
shall be double spaced. Proof of service on the other parties of all papers filed
with the Board shall be promptly made as required by Section 203.85. As fur-
ther provided in said Section 203.46 should any party desire permission to argue
orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board
within ten (10) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case
to the Board.
In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and recom-
mended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said Rules
and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions,
.and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 28th day of February 1949.
J. R. HEMINGwAY,
Trial Examiner.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist LOCAL UNION No. 181, INTERNATIONAL UNION
OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, A. F. L., or any other labor organization, to bar-
gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to en-
gage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection. All our employees are free to become or remain
members of this union, or any other labor organization.
KENTUCKY UTILITIES CO., INC.,
Employer.
By-----------------------------------
Dated-----------------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. .