Leslie Metal Arts Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 10, 1971

194 N.L.R.B. 137 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

LESLIE METAL ARTS COMPANY 137
Leslie Metal Arts Company, Inc. and International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America (UAW) and
Employee Communication Committee. Cases
7-CA-8368,7-RC-10230, and 7-RM-832
November 10, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
On July 26, 1971, Trial Examiner Herbert Silber-
man issued his Decision in the above-entitled pro-
ceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in
certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Exam-
iner further found that the Respondent had not
engaged in certain other unfair labor practices as
alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal
of those allegations. In addition, the Trial Examiner
found merit in certain objections to the election in
Cases 7-RC-10230 and 7-RM-832 and recommend-
ed that that election be set aside. Thereafter, the
Respondent 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
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the Trial
Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and
brief and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's
rulings, findings,' and conclusions 2 and to adopt his
recommended Order, as herein modified.
Our only disagreement with the Trial Examiner goes
to the following:
1. The Trial Examiner found that Respondent, by
using the profits from the food vending machines in
its Plant 5 to give its employees a potluck dinner,
violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act and engaged in
objectionable preelection conduct.
Although Respondent held this dinner shortly
before the December 3, 1970, election, its decision to
hold it predated the Union's organizing activities at
Respondent's Plant 5, and similar dinners were held
at Respondent's Plants 1 and 4. We are therefore
unable to conclude that Respondent's actions regard-
ing this dinner at Plant 5 were motivated by unlawful
considerations. Moreover, unlike the Trial Examiner,
we do not consider this incident to be objectionable
preelection conduct.
2. The Trial Examiner also found that Respondent
violated Section of the Act and engaged in objectiona-
ble preelection conduct by announcing a wage review
on November 13, 1970. In support of this conclusion
the Trial Examiner found that in 1968 and 1969
Respondent announced its plans regarding wage
reviews in January, while in 1970, this announcement
was made 3 weeks prior, to the December 3 election.
We view this announcement as being nothing more
than a report to Respondent's employees that Res-
pondent had been engaging in its annual fall review of
wages but that due to complicating factors (a strike
involving one of Respondent's major customers)
completion of the review had been delayed. We also
note that in years preceding 1968, wage review
announcements were made at approximately the
same time as the one involved herein.
We therefore conclude that this 1970 announce-
ment did not constitute a promise of a wage increase
and amounted to nothing more than permissible
preelection propaganda.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner as modified below and
hereby orders that'the Respondent, Leslie Metal Arts
Company, Inc., Grand Rapids, Michigan, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order,
as so modified:
1. Delete paragraph 1(e) and substitute therefor
the following:
"(e) Promising or granting employees benefits or
improvements in their conditions of work to dissuade
or discourage them from joining or assisting the
above-named Union or any other labor organiza-
tion."
2. Substitute the attached notice for the notice
attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election conducted
in Cases 7-RC-10230 and 7-RM-832 on December 3,
1970, be, and it hereby is, set aside, and that the
petitions filed therein be, and they hereby are,
dismissed.
I The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Trial Examiner. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule a
Trial Examiner's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear
preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions were incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544,
enfd . 188 F2d 362 (C A. 3). We have carefully examined the record and
find no basis for reversing his findings.
2 We do not adopt the Trial Examiner's "good-faith doubt" test in
finding a violation of Section 8(a)(5) inasmuch as such test has been
abandoned. See N.L.R.B v Gissel Packing Company, Inc., 395 U.S. 575.
We do, however , affirm the Gissel bargaining order recommended by the
Trial Examiner.
194 NLRB No. 20
138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT dominate or interfere with the
administration of the Employee Communication
Committee at our plant 5 or with the formation or
administration of any other labor organization of
our employees and we will not contribute support
to the Committee or to any other labor organiza-
tion of our employees.
WE WILL NOT give effect to any agreement we
may have with the Employee Communication
Committee at our plant 5.
WE HAVE withdrawn all recognition from the
Employee Communication Committee as the
representative of any of our employees at our plant
5 and we have completely disestablished such
Committee as the representative of any of our
employees at plant 5.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively
with International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America (UAW), as exclusive representative of
all employees in the unit described below, with
respect to wages, hours, and other working
conditions and, if an understanding is reached,
embody it in a signed contract. The appropriate
unit is:
All production and maintenance employ-
ees employed at our Plant No. 5 located at
3065 Breton Road, Grand Rapids, Michigan;
but excluding all office clerical employees,
guards and supervisors as defined by the Act.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with unfavor-
able changes in their conditions of work or other
reprisals if they should support or assist the above-
named Union or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT promise or grant employees
benefits or improvements in their conditions of
work to dissuade or discourage them from joining
or assisting the above-named Union or any other
labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise
of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or
assist the above-named Union or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any and all such activities.
LESLIE METAL ARTS
COMPANY, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions may be directed to the Board's
Office, 500 Book Building, 1249 Washington Boule-
vard, Detroit, Michigan 48226, Telephone
313-226-3200.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION AND
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO
OBJECTIONS TO AN ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HERBERT SILBERMAN , Trial Examiner : This consolidated
proceeding was heard at Grand Rapids, Michigan, on May
18 and 19, 1971. Following the close of the hearing briefs
were submitted on behalf of the parties.
THE PLEADINGS
The complaint in Case 7-CA-8368, dated March 26,
1971, alleging that Leslie Metal Arts Company, Inc., herein
referred to as the Employer or the Company, has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (aXl), (2), and (5) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, is based upon a charge
filed on December 10, 1970, and an amended charge filed
on February 5, 1971, by International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Work-
ers of America (UAW), herein called the Union. In
substance, the complaint , as amended at the hearing,
alleges that:
(1) Since September 30, 1970 , the Respondent has
established, has contributed financial and other support to,
has maintained control over, and has dominated a labor
organization of its employees at its plant 5, located at 3065
Breton Road in Grand Rapids, Michigan , known as the
Employee Communication Committee, herein called the
Committee , and has engaged in collective bargaining with
the Committee.
(2) Since October 19, 1970, the Union has represented a
majority of the employees working at Respondent's plant 5
in the unit hereinafter described and since that date the
Union has requested and the Respondent has refused to
recognize and to bargain with the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of such employees.
(3) By the foregoing and other conduct described in the
complaint Respondent has interferred with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. It is further alleged that
LESLIE METAL ARTS COMPANY 139
sheet permitting the Union to forward their names to the
Company as inpiant organizers for the Union. The next day
the complained of conduct was engaged in by Respondent
for the purpose of undermining the majority status of the
Union and served to prevent the employees in the described
appropriate unit "from freely registering their choice as to
representation and the possibility of the conduct of
uncoerced election." Respondent interposed an answer
generally denying that it has engaged in the alleged unfair
labor practices.
With respect to the representation proceeding: A petition
requesting certification of representatives was filed by the
Union in Case 7-RC-10230 on October 29, 1970, and a
petition requesting a determination of representation was
filed by the Employer in Case 7-RM-832 on October 23,
1970. Thereafter, the parties entered into a Stipulation for
Certification Upon Consent Election, which was approved
by the Regional Director of the Board on November 10,
1970. Pursuant thereto, an election by secret ballot was held
on December 3, 1970, among the employees in the
following unit:
All production and maintenance employees employed
by the Employer at Plant No. 5 located at 3065 Breton
Road, Grand Rapids, Michigan; but excluding all
office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as
defined by the Act.
The tally of ballots shows that of approximately 73 eligible
voters, 28 cast votes for the Union and 34 cast votes against
the Union. On December 9, 1970, the Union filed timely
objections to conduct affecting the results of the election.
The Regional Director on March 26, 1971, issued his report
thereon in which he found that the objections parallel in
substantial part the allegations set forth in the complaint in
Case 7-CA-8368, and that the determination of the
objections depends upon the resolution of material
questions of fact. Accordingly, the Regional Director on
the same date issued an order directing that the three cases
named in the caption hereof be consolidated for the
purpose of hearing, ruling, and decision and that thereafter
Cases 7-RC-10230 and 7-RM-832 be transferred to and
continued before the Board.
Upon the entire record in the cases and from my
observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Company, a Michigan corporation, is engaged in the
manufacture, sale, and distribution of dies, plastic automo-
tive parts, and related products. It maintains and operates
several manufacturing facilities in the State of Michigan
including its plant 5 located at 3065 Breton Road, Grand
Rapids, Michigan, which is the only facility involved in this
proceeding. During the calendar year 1970, which period is
representative of its business operations, the Company
purchased and caused to be transported and delivered to its
plant 5 directly from points located outside the State of
I James Johnson and Albert Gibson, who were called as witnesses for
Respondent, testified that after the October 15 union meeting they together
with Jerry Cramer spoke with Schultze about the authorization cards.
According to Johnson, "Mr. Schultze told us these cards were not a vote.
They were to entitle us to have a vote in the shop." Gibson testified that
Michigan goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000,
and manufactured, sold, and shipped from its plant 5
products valued in excess of $500,000 of which products
valued in excess of $50,000 were shipped directly to points
located outside the State of Michigan. The Company
admits, and I find, that it is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Union and the Committee are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Company operates several plants in the Grand
Rapids area. The facility involved here is plant 5, which
began operations in March 1968 and which employs
approximately 80 to 90 persons. The Company's executive
offices are located at its largest facility, plant 1, which
employs 250 persons.
The Union has made several attempts to organize plant 1.
Its most recent effort began in February 1970 and has
continued during most of the time pertinent to this case. As
an ancillary development to its activities at plant 1 the
Union organized plant 5. On August 29, 1970, four
employees (Alexander Duck, Janice Edsall, Shery Wilson,
and Hazel De Roo) who work at plant 5 invited themselves
to a meeting called by the Union for the employees of plant
1. At the close of the meeting the four spoke with the
Union's International representative, Walter C. Schultze,
about organizing plant 5. Schultze informed them that the
Union was concentrating its efforts on plant 1 and would
defer organization of plant 5 to a later date. Nevertheless,
the four signed union authorization cards at that meeting.
About October 13 or 14, 1970, two plant 5 employees,
Alexander Duck and Albert Gibson, separately telephoned
Schultze suggesting that the Union should then begin an
organizational drive at plant 5. After Schultze spoke to the
other plant 5 employees whom he had met on August 29, he
scheduled a meeting for Thursday evening, October 15,
1970. Notice of the meeting was passed by word of mouth.
About 15 to 20 plant 5 employees attended on October
15. Schultze chaired the meeting. Among other things, he
informed the audience as to the purpose and the meaning of
the authorization cards. He told them that the cards "stood
for exactly what it said on there" and that its purpose was to
indicate that the signer wanted the Union to represent him.
He also told the audience that after 60 percent of the
employees had signed authorization cards he would notify
the Company that the Union had a majority, he would ask
for recognition, and would offer to submit the cards to an
impartial third party to check against the Company's
payroll; but if the Company refused, then he would use the
authorization cards to -demonstrate the Union's proof of
interest to the NLRB.1 Authorization cards were signed at
that meeting. In addition, a number of employees signed a
Schultze said to the three employees that the cards were "to show the
company we wanted an election held and the card itself would not bring
the union in." Schultze denied that he told any employees that the purpose
of the authorization cards was to get an election. I credit Schultze.
Furthermore, the language of the card is clear and unambiguous and there
(Continued)
140 DECISIONS OF.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sheet permitting the Union to forward their names to the
Company as inplant organizers for the Union. The next day
additional authorization cards were given to Sherry Wilson
for distribution to employees. Wilson also undertook to
return the signed cards to the Union. A total of 47 cards
were signed by plant 5 employees between August 29 and
October 30, 1970.2
On October 16 the Union wrote to the Company two
letters listing therein the names of 23 plant 5 employees
who were acting as members of the Union's organizing
committee.
Thereafter, on October 19 the Union wrote to the
Company advising that a majority of its production and
maintenance employees at plant 5 had designated the
Union as their representative, that it stood ready to prove
its majority "by submitting signed authorization cards,"
and that it desired to enter into collective-bargaining
negotiations with the Company. As of said date, there were
72 employees in the appropriate collective-bargaining unit
of whom 41 had signed union authorization cards. On
October 22 the Company wrote to the Union declining its
recognition request. Promptly thereafter the Company, on
October 23, filed a representation petition with the Board
which was followed by a similar petition filed by the Union
on October 29. The parties subsequently entered into a
Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election
pursuant to which an election was held on December 3,
1970, which the Union lost.
Establishment of the Committee
There is no substantial dispute concerning Respondent's
attitude towards the organization of its plant 5 employees
or its responsibility for the establishment of the Committee.
The testimony of Donald B. Huizenga, Respondent's
personnel director since October 1967,3 is for the most part
uncontradicted.
Huizenga testified that he learned of the organizing
campaign at plant 5 on October 16 when Eldon Ringler, the
office manager at plant 5, informed him by telephone that
girls had been observed soliciting and signing union
authorization cards in the plant. The same day he caused
the following notice to be posted on the bulletin board in
the plant:
OCTOBER 16, 1970
is no basis for either Johnson or Gibson to have been misled as to the
purpose or the meaning of the authorization cards
2 The 47 authorization cards introduced in evidence are identical. One
side reads as follows:
TO: ALL EMPLOYEES
We understand that union authorization cards are
being circulated in the plant. Some of you have
apparently been asked to sign one of these little cards.
We want you to be aware that these "harmless little
cards" are not really harmless. Regardless of what you
might be told about "just signing up with the rest" or
"only getting an election", when you sign one of these
cards, you are actually authorizing the Union to represent
you without knowing the facts and what you may be
getting into.
This makes it clear these cards are not so harmless.
We don't believe that most of our employees want a
union nor do any of them need one. REMEMBER: The
best rule to follow is DON'T SIGN A UNION CARD
UNLESS YOU KNOW THE FACTS AND WANT A
UNION.
According to Huizenga the decision to establish the
Employee Communication Committee at plant 5 antedated
the Union's organizational drive at that facility. Huizenga
testified that a similar committee had been created by the
Company at plant 1 in February 1968. The impetus for its
establishment, according to Huizenga, was that employees
at plant 1 requested the Company to organize some formal
channel of communication between themselves and
management after the Union had lost a Board-conducted
election in December 1967.4 The Employee Communica-
tion Committee which the Company had established at
plant 1 was used as the model for the Committee which the
Company later established at plant 5. The operating
procedure, referred to below, for the Committee at plant 5
is a copy of the operating procedure for the Employee
Communication Committee at plant 1.
Huizenga explained that when the Employee Communi-
cation Committee was established at plant I it was not then
extended to other company plants because, among other
reasons, the other plants were smaller and management at
the individual plants was able to hold regular departmental
meetings with their employees. However, on August 21,
1970, Company President Leslie Tassell instructed Huizen-
ga to establish an employee communication committee for
plant 4,5 which was done in September 1970 and also to
establish such committee for plant 5 as soon thereafter as he
was able. Huizenga testified that plant 4, which is larger
than plant 5 and which began operations in 1966, was to
receive the committee first because "we felt there was a
greater need there" arising from dissatisfaction on the part
of the employees at that plant with their foreman and with
the plant manager, both of whom were later replaced. ,
This card will be used to secure recognition and
collective bargaining for the purpose of negotia-
ting wages , hours , and working conditions.
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT UNDER FEDERAL LAW TO
ORGANIZE AND JOIN A UNION
By joining the UAW, you have the support of one of
the world's largest Unions.
For further information contact:
KENNETH W. ROBINSON, DIRECTOR
Region 1-D, UAW
Box H , Grand Rapids , Mich. 49501
Telephone 949--4100
The other side reads as follows:
AUTHORISATION TO UAW
Date 19
authorize UAW to
I, represent me in collec-
Print Name tive bargaining.
Address-No. Street City Phone No.
Class of Work Hourly Rate Clock No. Dept. No. Shift
Employed By
Company Address
Signature of Employee
3 Huizenga acts as personnel director for all five of the Company's
plants. He maintains his office in plant I.
4 The Union also lost an election at plant I in 1966
5 Plant 4 is located close to plant 5.
LESLIE METAL ARTS COMPANY
In late September 1970 the Company began to take steps
toward the creation of the Employee Communication
Committee at plant 5. The following notice was posted on
the plant's bulletin board:
SEPTEMBER 30, 1970
TO: ALL PRODUCTION UNIT EMPLOYEES,
PLANT NO.5
SUBJECT: EMPLOYEE COMMUNICATION COM-
MITTEE
We are pleased to report that, through the combined
efforts of our employees and management at Plant No.
5, it has now grown to the size where we believe that a
new method of communication between employees and
management will be helpful to everybody. This is to
announce that we are in the process of establishing an
Employee Communication Committee and wish to
report that most of the arrangements have been
completed.
During the week of October 5th through 9th, we will
be holding a meeting with each department of all shifts
for the purpose of reviewing and discussing the
proposed operating procedure. A copy of the proposed
procedure will be posted for your review.
We urge you to keep up your fine effort.
As stated in the notice, departmental meetings were held
between October 5 and 9. Janice Edsall described what
occurred at the meeting of the assembly department which
was held on October 6. Present were Huizenga, Tassell, and
Plant Manager Harold Wind. Huizenga did most of the
talking. He said that the meeting was called to discuss the
Employee Communication Committee and described its
purpose as being to work out problems between the
employees and the Company, to have better employee
communications, and to permit employees to bring
problems to their representatives who in turn would raise
such problems at the meetings and attempts would be made
to solve them. Also Huizenga stated that the Committee
would represent the employees in disciplinary matters, and
that a committee representative would be present whenever
an employee is given a reprimand. Huizenga also described
the procedure under which the Committee would operate.
Among other things, he said that the members of the
Committee would be selected automatically on a seniority
basis. Edsall objected, stating that the employees would
rather elect their representatives than have the representa-
tives appointed. Tassell responded that he did not see why
the established procedure should be changed but neverthe-
less the change suggested could be made. No decision
regarding the appointment or election of representatives to
the Committee was made at that meeting. However, the
Company ultimately acceded to the election request. On
October 15 the following notice was posted in plant 5:
TO: ALL PRODUCTION UNIT EMPLOYEES,
PLANT #5
SUBJECT: EMPLOYEE COMMITTEE
During our recent discussions of the proposed
Committee Procedure, we received many good sugges-
tions. We want to thank you for your interest and
141
participation. We have already begun to work on them
and some changes have been made.
Several employees indicated a strong desire to select
their own department representatives. The company
indicated at the time that it felt the proposed method of
selecting from the seniority list would work better but
also stated the Procedure could be made flexible.
We are desirous of getting the Committee established
without further delay. Therefore, the company is
agreeable to allow the employees to indicate their
preference in this matter on a tally slip. The tally slips
will be distributed Thursday, October 15th. Please drop
your tally in the box at the Timekeeper's Office.
The following have been selected to count the tallies:
Mrs. Janice Edsall, Mrs. Barbara LaPema, Mr. Al
Duck and Mr. Al Ringler.
Thank you for your cooperation.
As announced a vote was taken to determine whether the
employees preferred the representatives to be chosen by
appointment or by election. The ballots were distributed by
Office Manager Eldon Ringler, and were counted in the
Company's conference room in the presence of Ringler
who helped with the count. A majority was in favor of the
election of the representatives. Employees who stayed after
their normal shift hours to help with the count were paid for
their time.
Despite the fact that the next day, October 16, the
Company learned of the organizational activities at its
plant 5 and within a few days thereafter received the
Union's letter of October 19 demanding recognition, and
despite the further fact that before the month ended both
the Company and the Union had filed representation
petitions with the Board and the Company and the Union
later entered into a Stipulation for Certification Upon
Consent Election, nevertheless, the Company continued
with the implementation of its plan for the establishment of
the Committee at plant 5.
On November 10 the following notice was posted:
TO: ALL EMPLOYEES, PLANT # 5
SUBJECT: EMPLOYEE COMMUNICATION COM-
MITTEE
We have revised our Employee Committee Proce-
dure and are now ready to set up the first meeting of the
department representatives. A copy of the revised
procedure has been posted for your information.
Based on the current department employment level,
we propose that department representatives be selected
from the following:
1st Shift 2d Shift
DEPT. No. of Reps No . of Reps
Assembly 1
Die Cast 1
Plastics 1
Tool Room 1
Shipping
Inspection 1
Maintenance l
PLEASE NOTE: All employees must have at least
142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
six (6) months seniority to be eligible to serve. Your
Foreman will conduct the first election within your
department with the help of two other employees that
he will select as tellers. We suggest that an employee
receive a majority of the votes to be elected representa-
tive. Record will be maintained of the results and the
new representatives will meet with management Friday,
November 13, at 3:00 PM in the Conference Room.
In the morning of November 11, Mrs. Edsall telephoned
International Representative Schultze. She informed him
about the Committee and asked if she should stand for
election. Schultze replied in the affirmative. Schultze then
telephoned Huizenga and told Huizenga that the Commit-
tee was illegal and threatened to file a charge if the
Company continued with its plan to establish such a
committee. Huizenga replied that he would take the matter
under advisement. While the Company did not respond to
Schultze directly, on November 13 it posted the following
notice:
TO: ALL EMPLOYEES, PLANT # 5
As you know we set up an Employee Communication
Procedure several weeks ago. We asked you to decide
how you wanted it to work. You made that decision by
majority vote. The first meeting for this new procedure
is set for today, November 13.
We thought you should know that the UAW
organizer called us this week and tried to tell us we
could not have that meeting. He threatened to file
unfair labor practice charges if we went ahead with it.
For some reason, he doesn't want us to meet with you.
We are going to have that meeting regardless of Mr.
Organizer's threats. We have every right to talk with
you and you have every right to talk with us. The whole
purpose of the Communication Procedure is to give all
of us- management and employees-the chance to sit
down together and listen to each other.
Ask yourselves these questions. Why does Mr.
Organizer tell you not to talk to us? Why does he try to
prevent us from talking to you? Is he afraid that you
might discover that you don't need him?
The election of departmental representatives was con-
ducted on November 11 by the departmental foremen.
Thereafter, the names of the persons elected as representa-
tives were posted on a bulletin board. The first committee
meeting was held on November 13 and additional meetings
were held monthly thereafter. Although the representatives
have been paid for the time they spent at the meetings,
employees have not been required to pay any dues to
support the Committee's operations. The minutes of the
committee meetings were prepared by Huizenga. At the
first committee meeting copies of the operating procedure
for the Employee Communication Committee were passed
out to the representatives and thereafter a copy of the
operating procedure was posted in the plant.
Janice Edsall who was elected first chairman of the
Committee testified that during the 6 months she served on
the Committee all meetings of the Committee were held in
6 Thus, the Company has imposed the requirements that employees
must have at least 6 months' seniority to be eligible to serve on the
Committee, that the representatives shall be selected only from among
employees of the Company, that the size of the Committee will be
determined by the number of operating departments and the number of
the Company's conference room and there was never any
meeting, of the Committee without representatives of
management being in attendance.
That the Committee is a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act is not in dispute-Respondent's answer
admits such allegation. Also, Respondent acknowledges
that it is responsible for the establishment and the
organization of the Committee and for the definition of its
functions. The Company's printed "Employee Handbook"
for plant 5, which was distributed on November 5, 1970,
contains the specific statement that "we have established
the Employee Communication Committee." The handbook
contains the following description of the establishment,
organization, and function of the Committee:
Your Company desires to promote and maintain
harmonious working relationships among employees as
well as between employees and management. To this
end we have established the Employee Communication
Committee. Its purpose is to improve the communica-
tions between employees and the Company; for
identifying problems of mutual interest; for transmit-
ting suggestions from employees for changes in policies
and procedures that are consistent, fair and equitable to
employees as well as the Company; and to insure that
employees are properly represented in the exercise of
disciplinary action, such as written reprimands, discipli-
nary layoffs and discharges.
The organization of the Committee, method of
selecting members, eligibility to serve on the Commit-
tee, term of service, functions of the department
representative, and all other procedures governing the
operation of this Committee are in the Committee
Operating Procedure. The Committee elects its own
Chairman. Minutes will be maintained of each meeting,
and posted to the bulletin board.
So far as the record shows the Committee has been
organized and functions as described in the Employee
Handbook and in accordance with a typewritten manual
promulgated by the Company and entitled, "Employee
Communication Committee Operating Procedure," except
only for the selection of the representatives of the
Committee-the Company having acceded to its employ-
ees' request that the representatives shall be elected instead
of appointed. Even in this area the Company's dictates have
determined the size of the Committee, the basis for
selection to membership on the Committee, and the
conditions governing eligibility to serve on the Committee .6
The first meeting of the Committee was held on
November 13, 1970. The Company was represented by
Huizenga, Ringler, and Wind. The minutes of the meeting,
which were prepared by Huizenga, reflect the following:
It was announced that the purpose of this meeting is to
discuss some of the problems that employees are having
within their departments and to answer questions. This
meeting is not for the purpose of bargaining anything
with the employees since this would be unlawful under
the present circumstances. However, we recognize the
shifts for each department and that the representatives shall be elected on a
departmental basis by shift and only from among employees working on
the particular shift Thus , a representative whose shift is changed or who is
transferred from one department to another would automatically lose his
status as representative.
LESLIE METAL ARTS COMPANY 143
need for discussion of problems and are going to discuss
the same.
Regarding the quoted portion of the minutes Janice Edsall
testified without contradiction that the following occurred:
Huizenga said "[s Jomething about receiving a call from Mr.
Organizer, and I said you mean Walt, and he said yes,
threatening him with unfair labor charges if they went
ahead with the meeting, but he said there was nothing to
prevent them from meeting with us to discuss things, as
long as they didn't do anything about it." The disclaimer by
the Company that the November 13 meeting was for the
purpose of bargaining with the Committee is inconsistent
with what in fact transpired. The minutes reflect discussion
of many subjects. Thus, a complaint was made that
production rates were not shown on the production cards
that hang on the presses.? The employee representatives
were promised that this would be done and the rates were
posted about 1 week before the election. The Company
promised to investigate a suggestion for the installation of a
coin changer in the lunchroom .8 Also consideration was.
given to a complaint that the overhead lights in the
assembly department were inadequate. Wind advised the
meeting that approval for additional lights had been
received. New lights were installed in the assembly
department 2 days before the election.9 The following
excerpt from the minutes of the December 10, 1970,
committee meeting reflects the changes effected by the
Company as a result of the complaints registered and the
discussions had at the meeting of November 13, 1970.
RESPONSE TO INCOMPLETE ITEMS FROM PRIOR
MEETING (11-13-70).
Number in parenthesis refers to Item of November
meeting.
(IC) Indicates Item Complete.
1. (3) Posting production rates-Die
Cast-Completed. per E. Ringler. (IC)
2. (4) Coin changer. Installed. (IC).
3. (5) Trim Press # 3-Repairs made, repeat
mechanism will be installed as soon as factory sends
installation instructions. per R. Herrick.
4. (6A) Difference in rate between Trim Press
Operator and PackerAll Trim Press Operators who
are required to pack or machine will be paid the Dept.
average of the Trim Press Operators for that day,
effective 12-7-70. per H. Wind. (IC).
5. (7A) Die Cast machine shut down. Proper credit
for down time. CO. ADVISED Foreman given
authorization to OK time on card as marked by
Timekeeper. per H. Wind. (IC).
6. (7B) Die Cast-Production rates on Trim Press.
Will establish temporary rates on jobs running bad and
also on machining if tied in with Trim Press rate until
problem is corrected. per H. Wind. (IC).
7 There had been a practice of posting such production rates which was
abandoned some time prior to November 13, 1971.
8 According to Huizenga, Respondent had already discussed the subject
with the Company that furnishes the vending machines.
9 Edsall testified that a complaint employees had made on October 6
and also at earlier departmental meetings that they should be permitted to
7. (8) Posting production rates-Plastics-Com-
pleted. per E. Ringler. (IC).
8. (9) Company will continue to furnish necessary
gloves and aprons. Procedure to be set up through crib.
Plastics Dept. Foreman may be permitted to hand out
gloves when assigning job. per R. Herrick.
9. (10) Stools-On 11-25-70 counted 36-30 em-
ployees on job. Will buy more if needed. Employees
report several stools being used for piling stock. CO
ADVISED Maintenance will build stands for stock. per
H. Wind.
10. (11) Vending Machines-Canteen service con-
tacted and told need more variety, keep machines filled,
repair immediately and Company has 2nd and 3rd shift
employees that need service . per D. Huizenga. Employ-
ee request sandwich machine and heating oven.
11. (13) Exhaust Pan-Two fans have been ordered
and will be delivered in approximately two weeks. Will
install upon delivery. per H. Wind.
12. (14) Overhead lights-Assembly Dept. Have
installed 3-8' lights and moved old lights to other
locations in plant. Will check to make certain all lights
ordered are in and check for need of additional lights.
per H. Wind.
13. (15) Assembly Dept. (2nd)-Need Material
Handler cooperation. CO. ADVISED reviewed with
Foreman and have hired additional man. per H. Wind.
(IC).
14. (16) Assembly rate complaint re: Maverick ash
box. CO. ADVISED met with Tool Room and assigned
men to make machine repairs where needed and they
were instructed to keep same maintained. Also, check to
see that front panels will be made properly. per H.
Wind. Production rate was time studied and found to be
OK and operators can make rate if equipment is
maintained . per B. Van Til.
15. (18A) Plastics Dept.-Quality Control Stand-
ard. CO. ADVISED all Foremen advised as to Quality
Control standards. Also, Inspector will be instructed to
report to Foreman if there are rejects and Foreman will
instruct operators. Inspector will not be permitted to
stop operator but must go through Foreman. per R.
Herrick.
16. (18B) Plastics Dept. needs cleaning equipment.
CO. ADVISED procedure set up through crib and
additional supplies will be ordered as needed. per R.
Herrick.
17. (19) Tool Room needs Maintenance items
available after hours. Keys given to Tool Room
Foreman. per R. Herrick. (IC).
18. (20) Tool Room Machinist Job definition now
being reviewed. Not yet complete. per H. Wind.
19. (22) Tool Room needs bench with hoist. All
parts ordered including hoist. per H. Wind.
20. (23) Crib man hired effective 12-7-70. per E.
Ringler. (IC).
wear tennis shoes rather than hard-soled shoes in the assembly department
was finally granted at the November 13 meeting. The minutes do not
reflect this According to Hwzenga, at the meeting of the assembly
department on October 6 Company President Tassell told the women that
they could wear tenors-type shoes so long as the soles were five-eighths of
an inch thick
144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
21. (26B) Employees walking around with coffee.
Foreman and employee advised. per R. Herrick. (IC).
Further Acts of Interference, Restraint, and
Coercion
The complaint alleges that on November 13, 1970, the
Respondent announced benefits and improvements in the
condition of employment at the committee meeting
described above in order "to dissuade its employees from
joining, aiding or assisting the Union, and to dissuade a
majority of the employees in the unit . . . from designating
the Union as their exclusive agent for the purposes of
collective bargaining with the Respondent." It further
alleges that Respondent, implemented and granted the
benefits and changes in conditions of work announced at
the November 13 meeting for the same purpose. These
allegations of the complaint are readily supported not only
by reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the
circumstances relating to the establishment of the
Committee10 but also from the Company's bulletin which
was posted on November 13, 1970. With reference to the
committee meeting scheduled for that day it states, "Why
does Mr. Organizer tell you not to talk to us? Why does he
try to prevent us from talking to you? Is he afraid that you
might discover that you don't need him?" The unmistaka-
ble import of this notice is that the Company was
undertaking to establish the Committee as a substitute for
union representation.
Additional benefits of the same character were promised
or given to the employees in the period before the election.
Thus, about Thanksgiving Day the Company used the
profits from the food vending machines to give its
employees a potluck dinner. According to Huizenga the
decision to do this was reached in September. However,
even if this were true the timing was singularly inappropri-
ate in the light of the pending election.
Another benefit promised the employees and one of a
more substantial and meaningful nature was the possibility
of a wage increase. On November 13, 1970, the Company
posted the following notice:
TO ALL EMPLOYEES:
We have been conducting our annual fall review of
wage rates and costs, looking ahead to a general wage
increase.
10 Although Huizenga testified that the Company had decided to
establish the Committee before it had learned of any organizational
activity at plant 5, the purpose of the Committee was the same as at plant
1; namely, to provide the employees with a company-sponsored
organization to deal with management so that they would have no desire to
obtain other representation When the decision was made to establish the
Committee at plant 5 the Union was actively organizing nearby plant I and
it may fairly be inferred that the Committee at plant 5 was established as a
countermeasure to possible future organizational activity at that facility.
Furthermore, the Company proceeded with the implementation of its plan
to establish the Committee even after it learned about the organizational
drive at plant 5
11 Respondent contends that the Company "typically announced pay
adjustments" each year However, for 1969, the announcement was dated
January 21, 1970; for 1968, the announcement was dated January 10, 1969.
(Announcements for earlier years would not have applied to plant 5 which
didn't begin operations until March 1968.) Whereas in the prior 2 years the
wage review announcement was made in early January, in 1970 it was
made on November 13-3 days after the Regional Director approved the
Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election and 3 weeks before
The past three months have been unprofitable due to
slow start-up problems, new tooling changes, and a
more competitive market-along with loss of sales due
to the GM-UAW strike.
However, with the cooperation of everyone to
minimize the mishandling of parts causing high scrap
factors, and an honest effort toward productivity, we
feel confident that when General Motors is back in full
production we will complete our normal wage review.
In accordance therewith pay raises were granted in January
1971.11
Prior to the election, Company President Tassell spoke to
the employees at departmental meetings in an effort to
persuade them to vote against the Union. Janice Edsall
testified as to the speech made by Tassell to the employees
of the assembly department between 3:15 and 3:30 on the
day before Thanksgiving. According to Edsall, among
other things, Tassell said: "[H]e didn't think we needed a
union there.... He didn't know why we wanted a union
because the union had a rigid set of rules to follow and he
didn't think we wanted that. He made the statement when
the union came in, the pigs would take over, the plant gets
real dirty and something about owning a company, Castle
Hardware, and when the union came in it went to the pigs
and he sold it...." 12 The speech contains a loosely veiled
threat that should the Union win the election the plant rules
governing employee behavior would become more rigid
which the employees would not like and that there would be
a deterioration in plant maintenance which might give rise
to the possibility of its sale.13
Conclusions
We have in this case a resuscitation of a type of unfair
labor practice which,, although once widespread, in the last
2 decades generally has fallen into disuse. "Around the turn
of the century some employers became aware of a shrewd
alternative to repression and violence as the means of
frustrating employee attempts at self-organization for the
purpose of collective bargaining. This was the company
union. First the employer formed a union to his liking and
then recognized this creature of his own making. Thus, in
effect, he sat on both sides of the bargaining table; and at
the December 3 election . Such timing served-and undoubtedly was
intended to accomplish such object-to impress upon the employees what
the Company had informed them in another bulletin posted the'same day;
namely, that they "don ' t need" an independent representative . Also it was
an artful suggestion to the employees that the results of wage review might
depend - upon the outcome of the election . Contrary to Respondent, the
selection of a mid-November date to announce the wage review was not
justified by past practice. If the practice of the preceding 2 years had been
followed the announcement would not have been made until after the
election.
12 In general, Edsall's version of what transpired at the meeting was
corroborated by Alice Willingham.
13 Alexander Duck testified about a conversation with Plant
Supenntendent_Harold Wind which the complaint alleges constituted
unlawful interrogation. Although Wind did not testify at the hearing, Duck
was uncertain as to when the alleged conversation took place and his
testimony in regard thereto on direct examination was substantially
inconsistent with the affidavit which he furnished ' to the Board during its
pretrail investigation of the case . In these circumstances , I do not find the
allegation of interrogation has been proved.
LESLIE METAL ARTS COMPANY 145
the same time he foreclosed the possibility of a genuine
representative coming to the fore. " 14 Even before enact-
ment of the National Labor Relations Act the Supreme
Court "had recognized that the maintenance of a `company
union,' dominated by the employer, may be a ready and
effective means of obstructing self-organization of employ-
ees and their choice of their, own representatives for the
purpose of collective bargaining." 15 Company dominated
unions "serve as a means of thwarting the policy of
collective bargaining by enabling the employer to induce
adherence of employees [thereto] in the mistaken belief that
it was truly representative and afforded an agency for
collective bargaining, and thus to prevent self-organization.
... " is Because company unions had been deemed a
primary or attendant cause of industrial disputes in a large
number of instances , Section 8(2) was enacted to eliminate
such practices. "[T]he prohibition was aimed at employers
who had created subjugated unions to minimize the threat
of organization by an outside union...." 17
The organization, recognition, and dealing with the
Committee by Respondent constitute a classic violation of
Section 8(a)(2). The thrust of such violation is "to prevent
self-organization ." " It is not surprising therefore that the
Union's card majority as of October 19, 1970, was
dissipated by the time the election was held on December 3.
In that interim the Company established its Employee
Communication Committee and through the Committee
provided the employees with a substantial number of
unprovements in their conditions of work. In addition, to
ensure that the employees would understand that it is the
Company to whom they should look for further benefits
and that they don't "need" the Union, the Company
announced a wage review and authorized a potluck dinner.
Although this case is generally free of the more common
forms of encroachment upon employees' self-organization-
al rights-except for Tassell's speech to the assembly
department-nevertheless, the unfair labor practices found
are of such pervasive nature that "the possibility of erasing
the effects of past practices and of ensuring a fair election
(or a fair rerun) by the use of traditional remedies . . . is
slight...." 18 Accordingly, a bargaining order is required
to remedy effectively the Company's conduct.
I further find that the Company's conduct in implement-
ing its plan for the establishment of the Committee after it
had received the Union's demand for recognition, the
granting of the improvements in the employees' conditions
of work, described above, and the promises of additional
benefits, including the announcement of the wage review,
in the context of Respondent's opposition to the Union,
demonstrates that the Company's rejection of the Union's
recognition demand was not based upon any good-faith
doubt of the Union's majority claim. Respondent's conduct
also demonstrates an attitude antithetical to the collective-
14 Gregory and Katz, Labor Law (1948), p 599. See Report of the
House Committee on Labor, H.R. 1147, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. 3(1935).
15 N.L.R B v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., 303 U S. 261, 266.
16 N.L R.P. v Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., 303 U.S. 261, 271.
17 The Developing Labor Law (BNA 1971), p. 137.
18 N.L.R.B. v Gissel Packing Company, Inc., 395 U.S. 575, 614. In
N L.R B v Drives, Inc., 440 F.2d 354, 367 (C.A 7), cited by Respondent,
the court enforced the Board's bargaining order despite its dictum to the
effect that the "cease and desist order disestablishing the Advisory Board
bargaining objectives of the Act. Accordingly, I further find
that the Company has violated Section 8(a)(5) and also, by
reason thereof and by the other unlawful conduct found
above, it has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
IV. THE REPRESENTATION PROCEEDINGS
For the purpose of determining the objections to the
election only conduct occurring after the date on which the
election petitions were filed may be considered.19 Almost
all the Company's incriminatory conduct, found above,
occurred after such date. It is no defense that the
Company's unlawful program was conceived prior to the
cutoff date. The Committee was not formally organized
until after the cutoff date and only thereafter did it begin to
function. Also, the benefits promised or given to the
employees, described above, which in the circumstances I
have found to be unlawful20 were given in the period
between the filing of the representation petitions and the
election. Likewise, in the same period Company President
Tassell made the threat to the employees in the assembly
department which I also have found unlawful.
I find that the Company's conduct, described above, had
a coercive impact on its employees at plant 5 and tended to
prevent them from making a rational election decision.
Accordingly, I recommend that the election which was
conducted among the employees of plant 5 on December 3,
1970, in the unit described above, be set aside. ,
V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Company set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the Company's
operations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
VI. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent established, dealt with,
and dominated the Employee Communication Committee
at its plant 5, I shall recommend that it withhold and
withdraw all recognition from the Committee and com-
pletely disestablish the Committee as the representative of
any of its employees. I shall also recommend that
Respondent cease giving effect to any agreement between
itself and the Employee Communication Committee.
However, nothing herein shall be construed as requiring the
would eliminate any likelihood that Respondent 's violation of §8(a)(2)
would preclude the holding of a fair rerun." Furthermore, I do not believe
the Board has accepted this dictum.
19 Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, 138 NLRB 453. It is immaterial
to the result in this case whether October 23, when the Company filed its
petition , or October 29, when the Union filed its petition, is used as the
cutoff date.
20 See N L.R B v Exchange Parts Co., 375 U.S. 405, 409.
146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Company to rescind, vary, or abandon any wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of
employment now applicable to its employees or as
preventing the Company's employees from asserting any
rights in relation to their terms and conditions of
employment which they may now have.
Having found that the Respondent unlawfully has
refused to bargain collectively with the Union, I shall
recommend that it be ordered to bargain collectively with
the Union, upon request, with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment for the employees in the appropriate unit
described below and, if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
Respondent's unlawful activities, particularly its estab-
lishment and its domination of the Employee Communica-
tion Committee, go to the very heart of the Act and indicate
a purpose to defeat self-organization of its employees. The
unfair labor practices committed by Respondent are
potentially related to other unfair labor practices pros-
cribed by the Act, and the danger of their commission in
the future is to be anticipated from Respondent's conduct
in the past. The preventive purpose of the Act will be
thwarted unless the recommended Order herein is coexten-
sive with the threat. Accordingly, in order to make effective
the interdependent guarantees of Section 7 and thus
effectuate the policies of the Act, an order requiring
Respondent to cease and desist from in any manner
infringing upon the rights of employees guaranteed in the
Act is deemed necessary.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon
the entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By establishing, dealing with, and dominating the
Employee Communication Committee at its plant 5,
Respondent has engaged and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act.
2. At all times since October 19, 1970, International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW), has been the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative within the
meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act of the employees in the
following described unit:
All production and maintenance employees employed
by the Employer at Plant No. 5 located at 3065 Breton
Road, Grand Rapids, Michigan; but excluding all
office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as
defined by the Act.
3. Since October 22, 1970, by failing and refusing to
recognize the Union as such exclusive collective-bargaining
representative and by failing and refusing to bargain in
good faith with the Union with respect to rates of pay,
hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of
employment, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(aX5)
of the Act.
4. By threatening employees that if they should select
21 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
the Union as their collective-bargaining representative in a
pending election conducted by the Board they will be
subject to more unfavorable conditions of employment,
Respondent has restrained and coerced employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7.
5. By promising and also by granting employees a wage
increase and other benefits and improvements in their
conditions of work to dissuade them from joining or
assisting the Union or voting for the Union in the pending
Board-conducted election, Respondent has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
6. By the foregoing conduct, Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 21
ORDER
Respondent, Leslie Metal Arts Company, Inc., its
officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of
the Employee Communication Committee at its-plant 5 or
with, the formation or administration of any other labor
organization of its employees and contributing support to
the Committee or to any other labor organization of its
employees.
(b) Giving effect to any agreement between itself and the
Employee Communication Committee.
(c) Refusing to bargain collectively with International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW), as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of its employees in the
following appropriate unit:
All production and maintenance employees employed
by the Employer at Plant No. 5 located at 3065 Breton
Road, Grand Rapids, Michigan; but excluding all
office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as
defined by the Act.
(d) Threatening employees that more rigid rules will be
established or that other conditions of their employment
would be changed to their disadvantage if they should
select a labor organization (not dominated by the
Company) as their collective-bargaining representative.
(e) Promising or granting employees wage increases or
other benefits or improvements in their conditions of work
to dissuade or discourage them from joining or assisting the
above-named Union or any other labor organization (not
dominated by the Company).
(f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist the above-named
Union or any other labor organization, to bargain
Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and
become its findings, conclusions , and order, and all objections thereto shall
be deemed waived for all purposes.
LESLIE METAL ARTS COMPANY
collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or
to refrain from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Immediately withdraw all recognition from the
Employee Communication Committee as the representative
of its employees at plant 5 for the purpose of dealing with
the Company concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of
employment, and completely disestablish the Committee as
such representative.
(b) Upon request, bargain collectively with the Union as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the
employees in the unit described above with respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and
conditions of employment, and, if an agreement is reached,
embody it in a signed contract.
(c) Post at its plant 5 in Grand Rapids, Michigan, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 22 Copies of
22 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "POSTED
BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD"
shall be changed to read "POSTED PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING AN
ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD."
147
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 7, after being duly signed • by the -Respondent's
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 its employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.23
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the objections to the
conduct affecting the results of the election in the
representation cases numbered above be sustained and that
the election held on December 3, 1970, be set aside. In view
of my findings that employee sentiment already expressed
through authorization cards would be better protected by a
bargaining order than by a rerun election, it is also
recommended that the petitions in the above-numbered
representation proceedings be dismissed.
23 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions' have been filed , this provision shall be modified to read:
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith."