Louis Gallet, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 3, 1980

247 N.L.R.B. 63 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

LOUIS GALLET. INC.
Louis Gallet, Inc. and International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, Teamsters Local Union No. 491. Cases
6-CA-11581, 6-CA-11815, and 6-RC-8242
January 3, 1980
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND PENELLO
On June 20, 1979, Administrative Law Judge
Marvin Roth issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed
a brief in answer to Respondent's exceptions.
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
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge' and to
adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified
below, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Louis
Gallet, Inc., Uniontown, Pennsylvania, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order, as so
modified:
1. Substitute the following for paragraph (c):
"(c) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
their rights to organize, to form, join, or assist labor
organizations, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, to engage in concert-
ed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any
and all such activities."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the representation
election conducted on November 17, 1978, be, and it
hereby is, set aside, and that Case 6-RC-8242 be
remanded to the Regional Director for Region 6 for
the purpose of conducting a new election.
247 NLRB No. 13
[Direction of Second Election and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.]
' In adopting the Administrative Law Judge's finding that Respondent
violated Sec 8(a)(l) we rely particularly on Respondent's implied threat of
loss of jobs. We think the clear implication of Respondent's letter of
November 2 is that, if the employees should select the Union as their
representative, Respondent would have to spend its time fighting the Union
rather than getting orders and remaining competitive in the industry, and,
consequently, the plant would close or some jobs would be lost. We also rely
on Respondent's emphasis on the inevitability of a strike if the Union should
win the election, a subject referred to in all three letters and clearly evidenced
in the statement in the November 9 letter that: "Your vote . . is going to
determine whether we are going to be subjected to the strikes and tactics that
have faced other companies that are organized by the Teamsters Union
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all parties had an opportuni-
ty to present evidence, the National Labor Relations
Board has found that we violated the National Labor
Relations Act and has ordered us to post this notice
and to carry out its provisions.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with plant closure
or loss of jobs if you choose Teamsters Local
Union No. 491, or any other labor organization,
as your bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT threaten you that strikes or
violence will inevitably result if you choose
Teamsters Local Union No. 491, or any other
labor organization, as your bargaining representa-
tive.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the
exercise of your rights to organize, to form, join,
or assist labor organizations, to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of your own choos-
ing, 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.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or
refuse to become or remain, members of said Team-
sters Local Union No. 491, or any other labor
organization.
Louis GALLET, INC.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARVIN ROTH, Administrative Law Judge: These conso-
lidated cases were heard before me at Uniontown, Pennsyl-
63
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
vania, on April 27, 1979. The charge and amended charge in
Case 6-CA-11581 were filed on September I and 20, 1978,'
respectively, by International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Team-
sters Local Union No. 491 (herein called the Union). The
charge and amended charge in Case 6-CA-11815 were filed
by the Union on November 22, 1978, and January 26, 1979,
respectively. The complaints, which issued on November 30,
1978, and January 29, 1979, respectively, were consolidated
for hearing. The complaint in Case 6-CA-11581 alleged, in
sum, that Louis Gallet, Inc. (herein called Respondent or
the Company), violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by discriminato-
rily laying off and refusing to recall employee Matilda
Kallok. Said complaint was dismissed by me at the hearing
for failure of proof (Kallok declined to appear at the
hearing). The complaint in Case 6-CA-11815 alleges, in
sum, that the Company, through three letters which it sent
to its employees during a representation election campaign
(Case 6-RC-8242), threatened its employees that the selec-
tion of the Union would inevitably lead to strikes, violence,
and loss of jobs and/or plant closure. The Company's
answer, in sum, denies that the letters were unlawful.
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued
by the Regional Director for Region 6 in Case 6-RC-8242,
an election by secret ballot was conducted on November 17
among the employees of the Company in an appropriate
bargaining unit. The tally of ballots showed that of approxi-
mately 77 eligible voters, 20 cast ballots for the Union, and
52 cast ballots against the Union. Four challenged ballots
were insufficient in number to affect the results of the
election. The Union filed timely objections to the election.
On January 31, 1979, the Regional Director issued an order
directing a hearing on the objections, as amended, which
alleged that the Company interfered with the holding of a
fair election by (1) threatening employees that it would close
down and go out of business if the Union was certified and
(2) laying off employee Matilda Kallok and creating wide-
spread fear of job losses. The Regional Director found that
the objections covered the same subject matter as the unfair
labor practice complaints and raised substantial and material
issues which could best be resolved through the medium of a
hearing. By an order of the same date the Regional Director
consolidated the unfair labor practice and the representation
cases for the purposes of hearing, ruling, and decision by an
administrative law judge. The Regional Director also or-
dered that after decision by an administrative law judge, the
representation case be transferred to and continued before
the Board. At the hearing I overruled the objections insofar
as they pertained to Matilda Kallok, thereby leaving for
consideration only the three letters which are the subject of
the complaint in Case 6-CA-1 1815.
All parties were afforded full opportunity to participate,
to present relevant evidence, to argue orally, and to file
briefs. The evidence adduced at the hearing consists, in sum
(in addition to the formal papers), of the three letters at
issue, including attachments to one of the letters, and
pertinent stipulations and representations by counsel for the
General Counsel and Respondent.
Upon the entire record in this case, and having considered
the briefs submitted by the General Counsel and the
Company, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
The Company, a Pennsylvania corporation with its sole
place of business located in Uniontown, Pennsylvania, is
engaged in the manufacture and nonretail sale of knitted
clothing. The Company annually ships goods and materials
valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points located outside
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from its Uniontown
plant, and annually receives goods and materials valued in
excess of $50,000 directly from points located outside
Pennsylvania for use at its Uniontown plant. I find, as the
Company admits, that it is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND THE
OBJECTIONS TO THE ELECTION
A. The Facts
During the election campaign the Company mailed three
letters to each eligible voter. The letters were on company
stationery, signed by Company President Valerie Gallet and
Vice President Roger Gallet, and were addressed to each
employee by his or her first name. The text of the first letter,
dated November 2, was as follows:
The National Labor Relations Board has told us that
we must have a union election later this month. You
will be voting in that election, and the question will be
whether you want the Teamsters Union to represent
you.
We think the Teamsters Union will hurt you, and we
think they will hurt our business. That is why we are
writing this letter. So that you will understand why we
have jobs and what we have to do to keep our Company
in business.
We have jobs because Louis Gallet started a business
thirty-five years ago. Until his death in 1955, Louis
Gallet did a good job of increasing the business. When
he died, there were over two hundred employees
working here.
In 1955, the business was sold and, two years later,
the new owners had to close the doors. There were no
jobs here from 1955 to 1959. In 1959, we started again
with one employee, and again we made good progress.
When we can get the orders, we have jobs for almost
one hundred employees.
Twenty years ago there were over one hundred
companies in the United States in the full fashion
' All dates herein are in 1978 unless otherwise indicated.
64
LOUIS GALLET, INC.
business. Today, there are just a handful left. This year
alone, three more companies (Colebrook in Florida,
Highlander in North Carolina, and McGregor in Texas)
closed their doors and sold their equipment. As our
Company is small, we do many jobs ourselves for which
other companies have to pay high salaries . . . such as
designing, supervision, selling, and watching that as
little as possible is wasted. Therefore, we are able to
keep busy, where other companies have to close their
doors.
What does the Teamsters Union know about us or
about our business? To get some of qur employees to
sign their cards, the Teamsters Union promised wage
increases that would put us out of business in two days.
The Teamsters Union represents freight company truck
drivers and the freight companies do not have to haggle
over the price for an order. The freight company prices
are set by the Government.
Our prices are not set by the Government. If we are
going to get an order, our prices have to be competitive
with Hong Kong, Taiwan, Korea, etc. That is an
unfortunate fact of life, and the Teamsters Union
cannot change it.
We have worked with you to make this company a
decent and rewarding place to work. We do not have
the time or the energy to fight the Teamsters Union and
strikes and violence. Everyone will be better off if we
can spend our time trying to get some orders.
When you vote in the union election, vote "NO".
The text of the second letter, dated November 9, was as
follows:
The date and the time for the union election have
been set. In order to vote, you must come to the plant
on the following date and time: Date -Friday, Novem-
ber 17; Time-2 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.; and Place-Lunch-
room at the plant.
It is important that you come to the plant to vote on
November 17 whether or not you are scheduled to work
that day. The election will be decided by a majority of
those who vote. If only twenty employees vote, the
Teamsters Union can win with eleven votes. But, if
seventy employees vote, the Teamsters Union needs
thirty-six votes to win. Do not let someone else make
this decision for you. Show up to vote on November 17
anytime between 2 p.m. and 3:30 p.m.
The union election will be by secret ballot. If you
signed a union card, you are not obligated in any way to
vote for the Union. No one will ever know whether you
marked your ballot "YES" or "NO" on November 17.
When you know the facts about the Teamsters
Union, we are confident that you will vote "NO". In
case you did not read last month's newspaper articles
about the Teamsters Union strike at the Anchor
Hocking plant in Connellsville, we enclose copies of
some of these articles. Take the time to read these
articles. If the Teamsters Union wins the NLRB
election on November 17, that is the kind of thing that
can happen here.
There is other information that you should have
about the Teamsters Union, and it is doubtful that you
will get it from those who are supporting the Union.
For example, Teamster Union dues are $14 every
month, $168 every year. The Teamsters Union uses this
dues money to pay Teamster officers the highest salaries
of any union and to pay for airplanes and cars and
expense-paid vacations. Read about these things in the
enclosed newspaper articles.
Your vote on November 17 is going to determine
whether we are going to be subjected to the strikes and
tactics that have faced other companies that are
organized by the Teamsters Union. You need to know
how the Teamsters Union operates. You need to know
what the Teamsters Union does with the dues money
they take from their members. Please read the articles
that are enclosed.
When you vote on November 17, do not turn your
future over to the Teamsters Union. The Teamsters
Union does not provide jobs or pay your wages. The
Teamsters Union only wants your dues.
Be sure to vote on November 17, and please vote
"NO."
There were several attachments to the November 9 letter.
The first was a montage ot newspaper articles dealing with
the Anchor Hocking strike. The bottom article indicated
that the 3-week strike ended with the negotiation of a
contract between Anchor Hocking and the Union. The
second attachment consisted of two newspaper articles,
accompanied by photographs, concerning destruction of
Anchor Hocking vehicles during the strike. These articles
did not mention the strike or otherwise suggest that the
Union was responsible for the damage. The third attachment
consisted of three newspaper articles dealing with alleged
extravagance and misuse of funds by the Teamsters Union or
its pension fund, and the fourth was the text of a magazine
article dealing with alleged corruption and gangsterism in
the Teamsters Union.
The text of the third and final letter, dated November 13,
was as follows:
By now, you probably know who Amos Courtney is.
He works for the Teamsters Union, and he sent you a
letter on November 7. In that November 7 letter, Amos
Courtney accuses us of lying when he said that his
promises to some employees would put our Company
out of business in two days. We did not lie. In our
November 2 letter we said:
To get some of our employees to sign their cards, the
Teamsters Union promises wage increases that would
put us out of business in two days.
If you get the chance, ask Amos Courtney if he did
not promise some employees that he would get them a
wage increase of $2 an hour. Amos Courtney cannot
deny that he made those promises, but there is no way
that he can deliver on those promises. A wage increase
of $2 an hour would add $18 to the cost of a dozen
sweaters. Add that cost to a dozen sweaters, and we are
out of business. No customer will stand still for
increases like that and, if Amos Courtney knew
anything about our business, he would realize that.
It is easy for the Teamsters Union to make promises
to you now, but you cannot rely on those promises. You
should judge the Teamsters Union on their record, just
65
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as you judge us on our record. Take a look at the
newspaper clippings that we sent to you last week. Last
month, with a big company in Connellsville (Anchor
Hocking), the Teamsters Union negotiated a three year
contract with the following wage increases: First year-
8.5%; second year-7.5%; and third year-7.5%.
That Teamster settlement with Anchor Hocking
averages 7.8% for each of the three years. Compare
those increases to what we agreed to pay when we
reached a two year agreement last year: First year-
9%; and second year-8%.
Our Agreement, without any interference from the
Teamsters Union and without your paying any dues to
the Teamsters Union, averaged 8.5% for each year of
the Agreement. Furthermore, you got your 9% last
year and your 8% this year without a strike.
You read about the Anchor Hocking strike in the
newspaper articles we sent to you last week. That strike
lasted three weeks. Those Anchor Hocking employees
will have to apply their entire wage increase for 35
weeks just to make up for their lost wages during the
strike. You should also know that, when employees are
on strike, they do not get unemployment compensation.
There was a group of Anchor Hocking employees
that did not go on strike last month. That group of
Anchor Hocking employees voted the Teamsters Union
out last August. Take a look at the Tally of Ballots that
is enclosed with this letter. On August 31, 1978, 25
Anchor Hocking employees voted. Only 8 of the 25
employees voted for the Teamsters Union. Twice that
many voted against the Teamsters Union. Notice that
this Tally of Ballots was signed for the Teamsters Union
by Amos Courtney. If you have a chance, ask Amos
Courtney what happened. Ask him why that group of
Anchor Hocking employees threw the Teamsters Union
out.
Please give us your support in the election on Friday.
We do not want to waste our time and our energy
fighting the Teamsters Union. We need to put our
efforts into getting orders so that we can get to work.
In order to vote, you must appear in person at the
plant anytime between 2 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. on Friday.
Show up to vote, and please vote "NO".
B. Analysis and Concluding Findings
I find, as alleged in the complaint, that the Company,
through its letters, threatened its employees that the selec-
tion of the Union would lead inevitably to strikes, violence,
and loss of jobs or plant closure. Therefore, the Company
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and interfered with the
freedom of choice of the employees in the election.
By its letter of November 9 the Company unequivocally
threatened its employees that a strike would be inevitable if
they selected the Union as their bargaining representative.
I find nothing improper in the November 9 letter insofar as it deals with
the matter of union dues and alleged Teamsters extravagance, misuse of funds,
corruption, or gansterism.
' The cases principally relied upon by Respondent (J. R. Wood. Inc., 228
NLRB 593 (1977); Belknap Hardware and Manufacturing Co.. 157 NLRB
1393 (1966); Bostitch Division of Textron, Inc.. 176 NLRB 377 (1969); and
Allied/Egry Business Systems, Inc.. 169 NLRB 514 (1968)) are distinguishable
The letter and attachments deal to a large extent with the
subject of strikes and accompanying violence and in particu-
lar with the Union's strike against Anchor Hocking in
Connellsville, Pennsylvania.2 With reference to the Anchor
Hocking strike, the letter states: "If the Teamsters Union
wins the NLRB election on November 17, that is the kind of
thing that can happen here" (emphasis supplied). Had the
Company closed the subject at this point, the letter would
have been lawful. An employer may properly discuss strikes
or accompanying violence as a possible consequence of
unsuccessful negotiations. However, the letter did not stop at
this point. Rat*hr the Company categorically stated: "Your
vote on November 17 is going to determine whether we are
going to be subjected to the strikes and tactics that have faced
other companies that are organized by the Teamsters Union"
(emphasis supplied). In sum, the Company threatened that a
strike or strikes would be inevitable if the employees selected
the Union. At no point did the Company suggest that
collective bargaining might result in a contract without the
necessity of a strike. Indeed, nowhere in the three letters did
the Company even discuss collective bargaining. Rather, the
entire tenor of the letters was couched in terms of either-or;
either the Company dictates wages, or the Union dictates
wages, with the latter at the cost to the employees of a strike
and loss of their jobs through plant closure. The distinction
between rational employer discussion of the possibility or
even probability of a strike and an express or implied
declaration of the inevitability of a strike is a crucial one. See
Honeywell Inc., Photographic Products Division, 225 NLRB
617, 618 (1976); Madison Kipp Company, 240 NLRB 879
(1979); Big "D" Mining, 222 NLRB 522 (1976).' Here the
Company's letters amounted to a rejection of the concept of
collective bargaining. The Board's rationale in Amerace
Corporation, ESNA Division, 217 NLRB 850, 852 (1975), is
here applicable. As stated by the Board:
In arguing against unionism, an employer is free to
discuss rationally the potency of strikes as a weapon
and the effectiveness of the union seeking to represent
his employees. It is, however, a different matter when
the employer leads the employees to believe that they
must strike in order to get concessions. A major
presupposition of the concept of collective bargaining is
that minds can be changed by discussion, and that
skilled, rational, cogent argument can produce change
without the necessity for striking. When an employer
frames the issue of whether or not the employees should
vote for a union purely in terms of what a strike might
accomplish, he demonstrates an attitude of predetermi-
nation that bargaining itself will accomplish nothing.
Employees should not be led to believe, before voting
that their choice is simply between no union or striking.
Here, as in Amerace, the Employer led the employees to
believe "that their choice is simply between no union and
striking." Therefore, the Company unlawfully interfered
in this regard. In none of these cases did the employer state or imply that
union representation would inevitably lead to strikes or loss of jobs. Thus, in
Wood and Allied/Egry the Board found that the employers merely asserted
that they would not yield under strike pressure to unreasonable demands (228
NLRB at 593-594, 595;169 NLRB at 514, 519-520). See also Belknap, 157
NLRB at 1398. In Bostitch the employer discussed the "possibility of strikes"
(176 NLRB at 385).
66
LOUIS GALLET, INC.
with the conduct of the election. Amerace, 217 NLRB at
852; W A. Krueger Co., 224 NLRB 1066, 1070 (1976).
Therefore, also, the Company violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act by threatening its employees that a strike and accompa-
nying violence would be inevitable if they selected the Union
as their bargaining representative. American Medical Insur-
ance Company, Inc., 224 NLRB 1321, 1328-1329 (1976). In
its letters of November 2 and 13 the Company asserted, in
sum, that Union Representative Amos Courtney promised
some employees that the Union would get them a wage
increase of S2 an hour. The Company further asserted that
such an increase would add $18 to the cost of a dozen
sweaters, which cost "would put us out of business in two
days." Absent evidence to the contrary, I have assumed that
Courtney made the promises attributed to him and that the
Company had reason to believe that it could not afford such
increases. An employer may, without threat of reprisal or
promise of benefit, respond to false or exaggerated claims by
a union in an election campaign. Big "D" Mining, 222
NLRB 522; Rockwell International Corporation, 226 NLRB
870, 877 (1976). However, the Company's November 9
threat was not tied to Courtney's promises. Rather, the
Company completely ignored the concept of collective
bargaining, which imposes a mutual obligation on both an
employer and the representative of its employees. The
Company did not assert that a strike would result if the
Union insisted to impasse on a S2-per-hour wage increase for
all employees. Instead, the Company presented the specter
of a strike as a direct and inevitable consequence of the
election; i.e., that the employees' "vote" would determine
whether "we are going to be subjected" to strikes. Therefore,
the Company unlawfully threatened its employees.
In its November 2 letter the Company began by stating,
"[W]e are writing this letter [s]o that you will understand
why we have jobs and what we have to do to keep our
company in business" (emphasis supplied). The word "we"
might reasonably be construed to refer to the Company, but
for the fact that the quote itself and the following sentence
referred to the asserted reasons why "we have jobs."
Therefore, it is evident to any reader that the quote refers to
both the Company and its employees. The letter then went
on to describe prior failures of the Company and other firms
in the garment industry with resulting loss of jobs. The letter
further denounced union-promised wage increases "that
would put us out of business in two days," and explained
that "our prices have to be competitive with Hong Kong,
Taiwan, Korea, etc." Near the close the Company asserted,
"We do not have the time or energy to fight the Teamsters
Union and strikes and violence." As heretofore found, the
Company in its November 9 letter conveyed the message
that selection of the Union would inevitably result in strikes
and violence. The November 2 letter closed with the
exhortation: "When you vote in the union election, vote
"NO." The Company made no other request to the
employees in this or the subsequent letters. In sum, the letter
conveyed the message that the employees must vote against
the Union in order to keep the Company in business. At no
point in this or the subsequent letters did the Company
suggest the possibility of collective bargaining, give-and-
take, or compromise, although the Company conceded in its
November 13 letter that it was quite able to afford
substantial wage increases. Instead, the Company conveyed
the message that selection of the Union, and not merely the
Company's professed inability to pay a $2-per-hour increase
to all employees, would inevitably result in plant closure. As
in its November 9 letter, the Company ignored and
impliedly rejected the concept of collective bargaining. By its
Nover.ber 2 letter the Company threatened (and not merely
predicted) plant closure and loss of jobs in terms which were
not "carefully phrased on the basis of objective fact."
Therefore, the Company violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
and interfered with employee freedom of choice in the
election. N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co., Inc., 395 U.S. 575,
618 (1969); Honeywell, Inc.. 225 NLRB 617.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
i. The Company is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of
the Act, the Company has engaged, and is engaging, in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
4. The Union's objections in Case 6-RC-8242, insofar as
they were not overruled at the hearing, have been sustained
by the evidence, and the Company thereby interfered with
the Board election held on November 17, 1978.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Company has committed violations
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall recommend that it be
required to cease and desist therefrom and to post appropri-
ate notices. In view of the serious nature of the unfair labor
practices found herein, including a threat of plant closure, I
am recommending that the Company be ordered to cease
and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.' As the Company
unlawfully interfered with the conduct of the election on
November 17, 1978, I shall recommend that the election be
set aside and that a new election be directed at such time as
the Regional Director deems appropriate.
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:
' See N.LR.B. v. Gissel Packing Co. supra; Multi-Narional Food Service,
Division of Schwan's Sales Enterprises. Inc.. 238 NLRB 1031 (1978).
67
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDERS
The Respondent, Louis Gallet, Inc., Uniontown, Pennsyl-
vania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening employees with plant closure or loss of
Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, jobs if they
designate or select International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Team-
sters Local Union No. 491, or any other labor organization,
as their bargaining representative.
(b) Threatening employees that strikes or violence will
inevitably result if they designate or select Teamsters Local
Union No. 491, or any other labor organization, as their
bargaining representative.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights to organize,
to form, join, or assist labor organizations, 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.
' In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules
and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings.
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is found
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its place of business in Uniontown, Pennsylva-
nia, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."'
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 6, after being duly signed by Respon-
dent's authorized representative, shall be posted by Respon-
dent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by
it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are custom-
arily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent
to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
3. The election previously conducted on November 17,
1978, is hereby set aside, and a new election shall be directed
at such time as the Regional Directbr for Region 6 deems
appropriate.
' In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."
68