Louisiana Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 8, 1965

152 N.L.R.B. 1301 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

LOUISIANA MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1301
We therefore conclude that the Employer's assignment of the work to,
lathers should not be disturbed. We shall, accordingly, determine the
jurisdictional dispute by deciding that lathers, rather than carpenters,
are entitled to the work in dispute. In making this determination, we
are assigning the disputed work to the employees who are represented
by the Lathers but not to that Union or its members. Our present
determination is limited to the particular controversy which gave rise
to this proceeding.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire
record in this proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board makes
the following determination of dispute.
1. Employees employed as lathers by Radachi Co. at Omaha,.
Nebraska, currently represented by Wood, Wire & Metal Lathers
International Union, Local No. 136, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform
the work of installing floor and ceiling tracks, studs, and bracing to,
receive drywall material on interior partitions, and of erecting 11/2-
inch channel iron, hangers, and screw channel for suspended ceilings at
the Mockingbird School in Ralston, Nebraska.
2. Omaha Carpenters District Council is not and has not been
entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to
force or require the Employer to assign the above work to carpenters.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination
of Dispute, Omaha Carpenters District Council shall notify the
Regional Director for Region 17, in writing, whether it will or will not
refrain from forcing or requiring the Employer, by means proscribed
by Section 8(b) (4) (D), to assign the work in dispute to carpenters
rather than lathers.
Louisiana Manufacturing Company and District 50, United Mine
Workers of America
Louisiana Manufacturing Company and Richard J. Owens
Louisiana Manufacturing Company and District No. 50, United
Mine Workers of America , Petitioner. Cases Nos. 14-CA-3294
14-CA-3294-2, 14-CA-3479, and 14-RC-4786. June 8, 1965
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
On February 1, 1965, Trial Examiner Phil W. Saunders issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
152 NLRB No. 131.
1302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
had engaged in and was engaging 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 Deci-
sion. He also found that Respondent had not engaged in other unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal of
those allegations. He further found merit in certain objections and
recommended that the election held on April 21, 1964, in Case No. 14-
RC-4786 be set aside and a new election held, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent and
the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision
and supporting briefs. The General Counsel also filed a brief in answer
to the Respondent's exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with
these cases to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and
Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and the briefs, and the entire rec-
ord in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the additions and modi-
fications noted below.
The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by soliciting abandonment of the
Union and withdrawal of authorization cards, by promising benefits
for refraining from activity on behalf of the Union, and by interrogat-
ing employees concerning their own and other employees' union activi-
ties, and that Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) by the
discriminatory refusal to reinstate employee Hardy Wilson. However,
we do not agree with the Trial Examiner's further finding that
Respondent did not violate Section 8 (a) (1) by statements of General
Manager Clarence Brown and Superintendent Charles Broz involving
threats of moving or closing the plant, and Section 8(a) (3) and (1)
by the discharge of employee Richard J. Owens.
1. The record shows that at various times after the Union's repre-
sentation petition was filed in February 1964 Broz told employee
Hardy Wilson that : The Company would have to move to St. Louis if
the Union came in because it could not afford to sign a contract with
the Union; if employees went on strike the men would "starve to
1 The Trial Examiner inadvertently stated that Thurston Strange testified concerning
a meeting of all the Negro employees, when the record clearly shows that Strange testi-
fied concerning another employee meeting.
LOUISIANA MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1303
death"; if the Company had to pay higher wages there would be no
"extra" work available when the employees' machines broke down and
employees would lose working time; and a union contract would not
provide for time off to go hunting as in the past. About the same time
Broz also informed employee Roy Watson that the foundry could close
down if the Union's efforts were successful. The record also shows
that in March, Brown told Watson that: The Maloney Electric Com-
pany, a St. Louis company, had been on strike for so long that they
were going to move out of town; Wells-Lamont, a local employer, was
forced out of town by a union ; this could also happen to the Respond-
ent; the employees could get as much without the Union; and the Com-
pany had no intention of signing a contract with the Union.
In addition to individual conversations, the record shows that Brown
spoke at two meetings in which he conveyed basically the same senti-
ments set out above. Sometime in the latter part of March, Brown
conducted a meeting of all second- and third-shift employees.
Employee Thurston Strange testified that at this meeting Brown said
that he would not sign a contract with the Union; that the Union could
do nothing for the employees; and that if the Union went on strike
those striking would all be replaced and lose their jobs. The second
meeting of employees was conducted by Brown during the latter part
of March or the first part of April. Employee John Shannon testified
that Brown told the employees at this meeting that if the Union asked
for wages which were too high, the Company might have to close.
Employee Edward Lawson testified that Brown informed the employ-
ees he would not sign a contract for higher wages and would not pay
higher wages.
A review of all the statments made by both Brown and Broz dis-
closes a course of action designed to create and instill in the minds of
the employees a fear of economic suffering and loss of benefits as a
result of selecting the Union.2 This type of campaign propaganda is
not protected by Section 8(c), as found by the Trial Examiner, since
it is at best a thinly veiled threat of reprisal .3 Accordingly, we find
that Respondent further violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by these
statements of Brown and Broz.
2. We do not agree with the Trial Examiner that Richard Owens,
known by Respondent to be a leading union supporter, was discharged
for insubordination. Rather we find on the basis of all the evidence
that the Respondent, through Broz, conducted a campaign of harass-
ment against Owens because of his union adherence; that this was
undertaken to provoke Owens into providing the Respondent with a
s Brownwood Manufacturing Company, 149 NLRB 921, and cases cited therein.
8 See Byrds Manufacturing Corp., 140 NLRB 147, 155; Custom-Pak, Inc., 126
NLRB 242. 248.
1304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
reason to discharge him; and that this conduct was intensified after
Owens appeared as a witness for the General Counsel in the instant
case.
It is clear from the evidence presented in this case that for 4 years
Owens was considered by the Respondent to be one of its better employ-
ees. In fact, Broz admitted that he had never had any difficulty with
Owens' work before September 21, the day Owens was discharged.
Further, the facts clearly show that because of the type of work
involved the average foundry employee took four to five breaks a day
and that it was not necessary to secure permission to do so. In spite of
the foregoing, record evidence establishes that after Broz discovered
Owens was a leading union supporter he began criticizing Owens for
taking breaks and not doing his work. It is further established that
Broz began following Owens during his break periods and this con-
duct continued until the morning of Owens' discharge. Broz also
extended this disparate treatment to other areas with respect to Owens.
Thus, during the Union's organizational campaign Broz laid off
Owens for the same infraction of a company rule that another employee
had been guilty of and not disciplined, even though Owens was acting
in an emergency whereas there was no similar explanation for the
conduct of the other employee.
The campaign of harassment against Owens culminated on the after-
noon of September 21, 1964, 2 working days after he had testified at a
Board-conducted hearing against the Respondent in Wilson's dis-
charge. On the afternoon in question about an hour before the end of
the shift, Owens left his work location to obtain an aspirin for a tooth-
ache. When he returned Broz was waiting for him, and asked where
he had been. When Owens stated the reason, Broz complained that
Owens was not doing his work. Owens retorted that he was doing as
much as anyone, whereupon Broz told Owens that every time he looked
for Owens he (Owens) was gone and since Owens was sick he should
go home. Owens protested that it was too close to quitting time to go
home, and when Broz insisted Owens asked him, inter alia, if he was
"crazy" and if he was "a doctor," and refused to leave work voluntar-
ily.4 Broz then fired Owens.
While a surface view of the events of September 21 indicate conduct
which may be characterized as insubordination, a closer look at the
facts clearly shows that Owens' actions were precipitated by the
Respondent's harassing tactics and provided, as planned, a convenient
pretext for discharging a leading union supporter. Accordingly, we
reject the Respondent's reliance on a naked right to discharge for
'Owens also used an obscene word during the exchange. While not relied on by the
Trial Examiner, we note that foundry and factory employees do not always employ the
language used in polite formal society while at work. See Nebraska Bag Company, etc.,
122 NLRB 654.
LOUISIANA MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1305
alleged insubordination, as it was not the real reason for the discharge,
and find that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the
Act by discriminatorily discharging Owens.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order the Order recommended
by the Trial Examiner, and orders that Louisiana Manufacturing
Company, Louisiana , Missouri , its officers , agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner 's Recom-
mended Order , with the following additions :
Amend paragraph 1(b) of the Recommended Order to read as
follows :
"(b) Interrogating its employees concerning their own or other
employees' membership in or activities on behalf of District 50, United
Mine Workers of America, or any other labor organization, and
threatening them with economic reprisals for the purpose of influenc-
ing their union activities or sympathies in a manner constituting
interference , restraint , or coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of
the Act."
Amend paragraph 2(a) of the Recommended Order to read as
follows :
"(a) Offer Hardy Wilson and Richard Owens full reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice
to their seniority or other rights or privileges , and make them whole
in the manner set forth in "'The Remedy.' "
Add the following paragraph as paragraph 2(b) of the Recom-
mended Order, the present paragraph 2(b) and those subsequent
being consecutively relettered :
"(b) Notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement
upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948 , as amended,
after discharge from the Armed Forces."
Amend paragraph two of the Appendix to read as follows :
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning their interest
in, and intentions with respect to, joining the above -named or any
other labor organization or threaten them with economic reprisals
c The General Counsel alleges that the discharge of Owens was violative of Section
8(a) (4) as well as Section 8(a) (3) We have found herein that Owens' discharge did
violate Section 8(a) (3), and have ordered his full reinstatement and backpay for the
period of his layoff. Under these circumstances, and as the policies of the Act will be
fully effectuated by our remedial order herein, we find it unnecessary to determine whether
such discharge also violated Section 8(a) (4) of the Act. See Wayne W. Wilson Company,
135 NLRB 28.
1306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for the purpose of influencing their union activities or sympathies
in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion viola-
tive of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
Amend paragraph 8 of the Appendix to include Richard Owens.
Also amend the "Note" to the Appendix to include "employees."
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On February 17 and 27, 1964, District 50, United Mine Workers of America,
herein called the Union, filed charges in Case No. 14-CA-3294 against Louisiana
Manufacturing Company, herein called the Company or the Respondent . The origi-
nal complaint in Case No. 14-CA-3294 was issued on April 30, 1964, and an amend-
ment to this complaint made on June 22, 1964. A Supplemental Decision and Order
in Case No. 14-RC-4786 was issued by the Board's Regional Director on June 24,
1964; and on July 10, 1964, an order consolidating Cases Nos. 14-CA-3294 and
14-RC-4786 and transferring Case No. 14-RC-4786 to the Board was issued. On
July 16, 1964, a charge was filed by the Union in Case No. 14-CA-3294-2. On
August 31, 1964, an order consolidating Case No. 14-CA-3294-2 with Cases Nos.
14-CA-3294 and 14-RC-4786 was issued, and on the same date a consolidated and
amended complaint was also issued on these cases. On October 12, 1964, a charge
was filed by Richard Owens against the Company in Case No. 14-CA-3479; and on
November 9, 1964, an order consolidating Cases Nos. 14-CA-3479, 14-CA-3294-2,
and 14-RC-4786 was issued; and on November 9, 1964, a second consolidated and
amended complaint was issued. The second consolidated amended complaint alleges
that the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a) (1), (3 ), and (4) of the National Labor Relations Act. In duly filed answers
the Company denied the unfair labor practice allegations.
Pursuant to due notices hearings were held before Trial Examiner Phil W. Saunders
at Bowling Green, Missouri, on September 15 and 16 and December 1, 1964. All
parties were represented and were given full opportunity to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, to introduce relevant evidence, and to argue orally. The General Counsel
and the Respondent also filed briefs which have been given due consideration in
arriving at my finding herein.
Upon the entire record and from my observation and the demeanor of the wit-
nesses,) I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein, a corporation doing busi-
ness in the city of Louisiana, State of Missouri, and is and has been at all times
material herein engaged in said business in the manufacture, nonretail sale, and dis-
tribution of aluminum and plastic castings. During the past 12 months, Respondent
in the course and conduct of its business operations purchased, transferred, and deliv-
ered to its plant in Louisiana, Missouri, raw materials valued in excess of $50,000,
which raw materials were transported to said establishment directly from States of
the United States other than the State of Missouri.
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that the Respondent is engaged
in commerce as defined in the Act.
1 The declaration that my findings are based on my observation of the witnesses Is
Intended to apply to the testimony of each and every witness, and my failure to comment
on the demeanor of a particular witness is not to be taken to mean that in evaluating
his testimony I have not taken his demeanor into consideration Moreover, when given
logical reasons for rejecting the testimony of a particular witness, either in its entirety
or on a particular point, it should not be assumed that I rely exclusively on such reasons,
and that the demeanor of the witness has not been considered in evaluating his testimony.
When I have indicated that I regard a particular witness as generally untrustworthy,
It is to be construed to mean that I reject his testimony as a whole, unless I explicitly
indicate that I accept his testimony on a particular point.
LOUISIANA MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1307
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is, and has been at all times material herein , a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issues
1. Whether , at various times between January and April 1964 , the Respondent
interrogated , threatened , and promised its employees within the proscription of
Section 8 ( a) (1) of the Act.
2. Whether the Respondent refused to reinstate Hardy Wilson, Jr., because of his
union activities.
3. Whether the Respondent terminated Richard J. Owens because he gave testi-
mony under the Act and because he had engaged in activities on behalf of the Union.
4. Whether the Respondent , preceding the election on April 21, 1964, in Case
No. 14-RC-4786 , engaged in such conduct so as to set aside the election.
B. Alleged interrogations , threats, and promises
Following the Union's organizational campaign commencing about the first of Jan-
uary 1964 ,2 and pursuant to the Union 's petition for an election filed on February 5,
resulting in an election on April 21 which was lost by the Union , and during such
period according to the testimony of the General Counsel's witnesses , the Respond-
ent's management hierarchy engaged in conduct, some of which, if believed, con-
stitutes a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
Thus, Roy Watson testified that in February and up until the election, the
Respondent 's superintendent of the permanent mold division , Charles Broz , inquired
of him on many occasions whether he knew the different employees who were for
the Union and who were not. Watson testified that in March, Broz told him that
employees Griffith, Bono , and Owens were behind the Union and that he could not
understand why, and also testified that after the April election Broz had inquired as
to how he had voted.
Hardy Wilson testified that in January Superintendent Broz inquired of him what
he thought about the Union, and asked Wilson who the union "ringleaders" were.
Wilson further stated that Broz also inquired of him if he knew any employees who
were taking or signing union cards and talking about the Union , and that Broz
then asked Wilson to find out who these employees were. Wilson testified that on
or about February 7 Broz inquired of Wilson at the plant if he had received a cer-
tain letter from the Union , and both of them drove over to Wilson 's home in order
to get the letter which Broz then read , and after so doing informed Wilson that the
Union did not have a majority of the employees because he was getting employees
to take withdrawal cards. Wilson also testified that on or about February 7, 8, or 9
Broz asked Wilson to bring him the letters that he was receiving from the Union
and to inform him of the employees who were supporting the Union . Wilson fur-
ther related in his testimony that around February 13 Broz asked him if he would
take a withdrawal card or write a letter to the Union requesting such a card, and
that about February 18 or 19 Broz again asked him about writing to the Union for
a withdrawal card Within a few days thereof Wilson told Broz that he was not
going to withdraw from the Union , and testified that Broz then informed him that
he was "two faced ," and that after this encounter Broz never discussed the Union
with him.
James Lindsey testified that shortly before the election on April 21 , Broz asked
him if he was going to vote for the Union, and had also inquired if Lindsey knew of
anybody that was. After the election Broz then inquired of Lindsey if he had voted
for the Union , and also asked if he knew of other employees who had voted for the
Union.
Charles Harrison testified that the day after the election Broz inquired of him
how he had voted.3 Richard Owens stated that during the latter part of January,
Broz had inquired of him whom he had been with the evening before , and that after
Broz kept on "hinting ," Owens told him that he had been with union representatives.
2 All dates are 1964 unless specifically stated otherwise
2 Broz further told Harrison that there were 28 men who voted for the Union, but
he could not find a one of them.
1308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The consolidated and amended complaint alleges that Broz promised an employee
that he would have a permanent job if the employee would provide the Company
with information about the Union. Hardy Wilson testified that within a few days
after February 7, Broz informed Wilson that as long as he would "help him" Wilson
would always have a job. Wilson further testified that on many other occasions,
prior to and after the above incident, Broz also promised him better money, and
better opportunities in the plant .4
As to the alleged threats during the period in question , Watson testified that in
his conversation with Broz about the middle of February, Broz informed him that
the foundry could close down if the union efforts were successful. Watson stated
that during the second week in March, the Respondent' s general manager , Clarence
Brown, informed him that the Company had no intentions of signing a contract
with the Union, told Watson that the employees could get as much without the
Union, and mentioned to Watson that the Moloney Electric Company had been on
strike for so long that they were going to have to move out of town, and that this
could also happen to the Respondent 5 James Price testified that during the last
part of March, Clarence Brown addressed two shifts of employees at the foundry
and informed them by so doing that he would not sign a contract that would make
employees join a union , and further told them that he could not give employees a
raise while a petition for an election was pending. Hardy Wilson testified that
shortly after February 7, Broz told him that the Company could not afford to sign a
contract, and that if the employees went out on strike they would "starve to death,"
and that it would do "no good" to vote for the Union. Broz then asked Wilson to
"spread" this around to the other employees. Wilson related in his testimony that
Broz also stated that if the Union and the Company had to pay higher wages, then
there would be no extra or miscellaneous work available at times when their machine
broke down and employees were unable to continue on their regular assignment;
and further informed Wilson that there would be no clause in the contract allowing
time off for deer hunting, and therefore employees could not deer hunt after the
Union came in. John Shannon testified that in a meeting with certain employees
at the end of March or the first of April, Clarence Brown told them that if the
Union asked for wages that were too high, the Company might have to close.
Edward Lawson stated that in this meeting Brown informed employees that he
would not sign a contract for higher wages, and would not pay higher wages. Thurs-
ton Strange also gave similar testimony concerning this meeting, and also stated that
Brown informed them that he could not see where the Union could do anything for
the men , and that if the Union went on strike, those striking would be out of a job,
being replaced with others.
Conclusions
It is apparent from this record that Respondent's superintendent, Broz, engaged in
numerous acts of interrogation from early in January when the union activity started,
and continued to do so until after the election. Furthermore, there is no evidence,
or argument, that in so doing any of the safeguards required by the Board's Blue
Flash doctrine were taken in order to eliminate the unlawful and coercive effect of
such conduct. I have credited-and do hereby credit--the testimony of the various
witnesses for the General Counsel as to what Broz asked or told them in his inter-
rogations on the basis of my observations and their demeanor , and also on the basis
that some of the incidents of interrogations are even admitted. For instance, in the
interrogation of Watson, Broz admitted in his testimony that he asked Watson at
various times who was in the Union. Broz also admitted in his testimony that Wilson
would volunteer information about the Unions Broz also further admitted that after
the election he asked Lindsey how he had voted, and also admits that he had seen
Owens with "somebody" on the night before his conversation with Owens at the
plant on the following morning. In light of these circumstances it would be most
S The General Counsel concedes that there is no evidence to support the allegation in
paragraph V, subparagraph U of the complaint in reference to interrogations by Respond-
ent's supervisor , Emery Weeks.
5 Watson further attributed remarks to Clarence Brown around the middle of February,
to the like effect that the employees could do as well without the Union, and that a local
employer, Wells-Lamont, was forced out of town by a union and that this could happen
to the Company.
e Broz denied the specific statements and other incidents Wilson attributed to him, as
previously set forth herein However, Broz did admit that he and Wilson went to Wilson's
home to get a union letter, as previously pointed out.
LOUISIANA MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1309
difficult indeed to accept the versions of these conversations as suggested by Broz in
his testimony. To do so would require me to believe that he was merely a listener
on all such occasions, and was only replying to questions asked of him in casual
daily conversations with old friends, but that Broz would then abruptly terminate
his remarks when they reached the critical areas. The Respondent suggests that
Watson and Broz were friends and coworkers for many years and were in the habit
of discussing the topics of the day, and that on some days the Union was the topic
uppermost in their minds, and so they talked about it. The Respondent would have
me discredit the testimony of Hardy Wilson on the basis of Watson's testimony for
the General Counsel that Wilson's reputation for truth and veracity was bad, that
Broz did not make a blanket denial of the interrogations, and that Wilson, as an
interested witness, put all his testimony in the most favorable light he could I have
rejected these contentions by the Respondent because this record abundantly shows
that Broz was making repeated and systematic interrogations to ascertain who was
for the Union and what the Union was doing, and certainly made it his daily busi-
ness to see that the Union was the topic of conversation. If such, under these par-
ticular circumstances, can be successfully classified as only statements made in the
course of friendly conversations with old friends, then I am unaware of any Board
decisions so holding. Watson's testimony as to Wilson's reputation hinged on alleged
stories Wilson supposedly told about rabbits, dogs, and hunting. In this regard 1
think one can safely state that hunting and dog stories have always been subject to,
different and extraordinary versions, and there is no testimony whatsoever-even
assuming the exaggerated hunting stories-that Wilson applied imaginative state-
ments in any other fields of his endeavor
It has been well settled by the Board and the courts that in determining whether
an employer's conduct amounts to a violation within Section 8(a) (1), the test is
not for the employer's intent or motive, but whether the conduct is reasonably cal-
culated, or tends to, interfere with the free exercise of the rights guaranteed by the
Act. If the setting, the conditions, the methods or other probative context can be
appraised, in reasonable probability, as having the effect of restraining or coercing
the employees in the exercise of such rights, then this activity on the part of the
employer is violative of this section of the Act N L.R.B. v. Protein Blenders, Inc.,
215 F 2d 749, 750 (C.A. 8). This is especially true in the insecure organizational
period, as here, where the employer can make some seemingly innocent question or
remarks to suggest his displeasure with employees who support the Union. The
credited testimony summarized, supra, establishes that Broz unlawfully interrogated
employees as to who was supporting the Union, how they would vote or voted in
the election, which employees were signing authorization cards, what employees.
thought about the Union, asking an employee to sign a withdrawal card, inquiring
about an employee being seen with union representatives, asking to see a union letter
to employees, and unlawfully offering or promising Wilson benefits for refraining
from such union activity. These instances of interrogations and promises by the
Respondent's supervisor, Broz, are not instances of objective inquiry as to the pro-
priety of recognizing a labor organization. Rather, the Respondent interfered with,
restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, and I find such conduct violative of Section 8(a) (I) of the Act.
Insofar as the allegations pertaining to threats by Broz and Brown are concerned,
the General Counsel maintains the following.
It is clear from all of the evidence that Respondent was attempting by its threats.
to employees to create the impression that it would be futile to select a collective-
bargaining representative, and that unionization would lead to plant shutdown
and removal The Respondent attempted to instill this fear in its employees by
again and again pointing out (1) that a union could obtain nothing more for
employees than they were presently receiving from Respondent; (2) that the
Respondent would never meet the Union's request for a union security contract.-
(3) that the Union's wage demands might force the Respondent to mo e, and
(4) that, like Wells-Lamont in nearby Clarksville, Missouri, and like other com-
panies, the Respondent might be forced to close and move by a union strike,-
The Respondent's position is that even assuming the statements were made, they
amounted to no more than statements of opinions or predictions, and fall within the
protection of free speech under 8(c) of the Act
It is well established by both the Board and the courts that expressions of opinion:
as to employers' ability to increase wages, the possible effects of a strike on the
employees and the plant, whether or not a union would do any good if they orga-
nized, and to speculate about what a union contract might contain and the reaction.
1310 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the Company to such omissions or demands, are all matters which fall within
the protection of free speech. While these particular remarks and speeches made
to employees by Brown and Broz referred to the possibility of closing and that there
would be no work in case of a strike, it is plain to me that this was not intended as
a threat, but an expression of their fear that unionization would lead to higher costs
and, therefore, the plant could move or close with consequent loss of jobs. The
Respondent's campaign statements, properly understood, did not imply that the
Company would not enter into an agreement with the Union if it won the election.
It appears to me that the Respondent sought only to explain its respective rights and
obligations in relation to the Union, and in so doing, merely indicated the possible
disadvantages of union organization. It is noted also that in the speeches given by
Brown in group meetings, he assured the employees that they were not going to be
fired, and that his main job in talking to them was to sell the Company to the
employees. It seems to me that the proper evaluation of Brown's remarks must also
be viewed in light of these circumstances. Certainly, viewed in all its proper aspects,
the Respondent did not create the impression of the inevitability of a strike and
closing its plant, nor did it create an atmosphere of futility if the employees selected
the Union as their bargaining agent. I am convinced that in this phase of the case
the Company was merely exercising its protected right to inform the employees
that unionization might or could entail certain disadvantages, and that its campaign
in these respects was not violative of the Act In accordance with the above, I do
hereby dismiss those portions of the complaint setting forth such allegations of
implied threats.
As to Hardy Wilson
Hardy Wilson started working for the Company in 1961, and for purposes here
was employed as a mold operator in the permanent mold department with Charles
Broz as his foreman.? Wilson testified that on about February 17 or 18, his back
started to hurt him, and as a result he was assigned duties of filing castings , and where
he could work without standing up. However, on February 24 Wilson had to enter
a hospital for the removal of a kidney to correct his back condition, and Broz was
go informed by Wilson's wife. Wilson testified that after his convalescence he spoke
to Broz at the plant on April 21, the day of the election, at which time Broz informed
Wilson that he was no longer employed as the company insurance would not cover
him 8 On May 9 the doctor informed Wilson that he could go back to his employ-
ment on light work and then after 3 or 4 weeks could go back on heavy work.
Wilson testified that on the same day he then contacted Broz and showed him the
letter from his doctor as to his physical capabilities, but that Broz informed him that
he did not have anything for him to do. Wilson related that on May 29 or 30 he
again contacted Broz and informed him that he had a letter from his doctor saying
that he could now return to duties on a full-time basis and do heavy work. Wilson
stated that Broz then told him that he did not give a "damn about the letter" and
that Wilson could never come back as he caused too much trouble .9
Roy Watson testified that about the first of May, he asked Broz when he was going
to hire Wilson back, and Broz replied he did not know and that Wilson was a
"trouble-maker." 10 Watson stated he again asked Broz around the middle of May
about Wilson coming back, and this time Broz told him he did not think Wilson
could do heavy work. Watson further testified that the more difficult molds to make
were assigned to Lewis, Shannon, McPike, and Wilson, and stated that employees
English and Chapman could not produce as many castings as Wilson and that Wilson
could also produce as much as employee Hampton.
Charles Broz testified that before the April election, Wilson was walking toward
the plant and he then inquired as to how Wilson was feeling, and that Wilson then
showed Broz his scar from the operation; Broz stated that on election day, April 21,
he told Wilson that he could not go into the plant as the Respondent' s insurance
company was no longer responsible. Broz also related that on May 9 Wilson asked
7 Wilson signed an authorization card for the Union on January 14
8 On this occasion Wilson did not enter the plant until it was time for the employees
to vote in the election.
:This record shows that on June 10 Wilson went to work for Valley Steel and stayed
there until July 3. Wilson testified that his work at Valley Steel required constant
lifting of pipe measuring 8 to 12 feet long and weighing from 50 to 300 pounds Wilson
stated that his doctor's checkup after his layoff for lack of work on July 3 showed no ill
effects from this work
11 Watson was the setup man in the permanent mold department.
LOUISIANA MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1311
for a job on the "bench ," but at this time he did not have such a job available. Broz
testified that what he needed then was a mold operator , and because of the operation
he knew that Wilson could not operate a mold.11 Broz testified that Wilson then
returned at the end of May, and at this time he informed him that he could not be
responsible for an assignment as a mold operator because of Wilson's condition.
Broz admitted that Wilson had made the more difficult molds in his prior work as
an operator in the permanent mold division , and stated that the only reason Wilson
was not rehired is that he could not do the hard work.
It is clear from this record that Wilson was one of the Respondent 's best and
most capable mold operators . Furthermore , this record shows that Wilson and
Broz had been very close personal friends and, in fact , for many years hunted
together . It is also apparent that because of his personal relationship , Broz used
Wilson as his chief source of information as to the activities of the Union.
This record further shows that in early April , right after he left the hospital,
Wilson returned to the plant for a visit. On this occasion Wilson showed Broz the
scar that had resulted from his operation , and they had a friendly conversation about
how Wilson was getting along. Broz testified that during this conversation Wilson
asked where Supervisor Emery Weeks was, and Broz told Wilson that he was prob-
ably in his office. Broz then testified that Wilson walked over to Week's department.
There is no evidence that Wilson was then told that he was no longer employed or
that he could not go into the plant. The change in the Respondent's relationship
toward Wilson appears to have reached the pinnacle on about April 15, at which
time a letter was sent by the Company to all its employees , and in which Wilson
was characterized as a liar in some prior statements he had made concerning another
employee and the Union.12 Around the first of May, Broz then expressed to Wat-
son his dissatisfaction with Wilson because he was a "troublemaker ," but nothing
was said on this occasion about his physical ability to do the work . On May 9
Wilson first reapplied for work by showing Broz a note from the doctor stating that
he could return to duty for light work at that time , and that within 3 or 4 weeks he
could return to heavy work . On or about the last day in May, Wilson again reap-
plied for work by telling Broz that his doctor had written a letter stating that he
could return to full-time heavy work, but Broz replied that he did not care about
the letter , and that Wilson had caused too much trouble.13
The Respondent's refusal to reinstate Wilson is unusual in light of the fact that
employee James Lindsey was reinstated after he had been away from his job due
also to an operation . This record shows that Lindsey went to the hospital on or
about January 27 for an ulcer operation , and after about a 2-month absence con-
tacted Broz, and after telling him that he could not do any heavy work, Broz replied
that he would "figure out something" for Lindsey to do. Lindsey was then first
returned to work on a grinder , and then was transferred to a saw where he cut his
hand and had to miss work for 2 weeks. After recovering from this accident Lind-
sey was assigned work on a core machine, and then transferred back to the grinder.
In the final analysis here, the Respondent 's only reason for refusing to reinstate
Wilson is that Broz was apparently able to determine by visual observations that
Wilson would never be able to perform his former work as a mold operator and the
assertion that there was no light work available in the department on May 9. In the
total aspects of this record , and upon the evidence given herein , I find that the rea-
son for the refusal to reinstate Wilson was the Respondent 's desire to get rid of an
employee whom it once sought and used as its chief source of information , but who
then later changed his mind and decided to stay with the Union-and all to the spe-
cific and intimate knowledge of Broz, as aforestated.
"There is considerable testimony in this record bearing on the exact duties and func-
tions of a mold operator . It is sufficient for purposes here to note that the job requires
considerable effort , strength , and energy , and also is probably the most difficult work in
the plant . The mold operators also work in an atmosphere and surroundings of extremely
high temperatures and heat
-3 The Parties ' Joint Exhibit No 1-G
13 There is no evidence , or contention , that Wilson lost the privilege of returning to
work because he had to leave work to enter the hospital . On the contrary, it appears
from the record that Broz gave employees the widest latitude in leaving work while
retaining the right to return to employment with the Company . For example, Broz
testified that he told employee Robert English that if he chose to work elsewhere and
then decided to return to work for Respondent , he could "always" do so, and English
was permitted to return to work approximately 2 months after he had quit working for
Respondent, and where he had been employed for only a short while beforehand
1312 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Although the Company maintains that they had no light work for Wilson when he
first contacted Broz on May 9, the evidence in this respect also shows otherwise 14
It is noted that when Wilson first showed signs of back trouble shortly after the
middle of February , he was immediately placed on light work on the "bench"-the
Company had no difficulty at this time in finding other work for him, and such were
Wilson's duties at the time he entered the hospital . It is further noted that when
Lindsey returned from his ulcer operation in April and asked for light duties, he
was given work on the grinder. It is next noted that Broz ' usual attitude in reinstat-
ing other employees is also shown by the evidence that Robert English was employed
elsewhere and then returned to the Company with the prior assurances of Broz that
"he'd always have something " As a matter of fact, Broz himself admitted that the
Company has special rush orders to fill so that "very often " he would take operators
off the molds to help fill and ship such orders. It is readily apparent to me that the
plant was not only in constant need of mold operators-which is undisputed-but
that there also existed a continual need for other experienced workers within the
permanent mold division . Certainly , the past history of other employees is ample
proof in showing that Broz was constantly able to use men who had experience in
his department . Furthermore , if Broz had acknowledged the letter from the doctor
on May 9, he would have then had definite medical information giving his positive
assurances that Wilson could immediately assume his former position on light work
within the department , and then within 3 or 4 weeks return to duties as a mold
operator in the specific category of work readily needed by the Company.
For the reasons given here, the demeanor of the witnesses , and in consideration of
the events , the record as a whole, and the Respondent 's union animus , it is clear that
Wilson was discriminatorily refused reinstatement on May 9, 1964.
The Termination of Richard J. Owens in Violation of
Section 8 ( a) (3) and (4) of the Act
Owens testified at the first hearing before me on September 15 as to Broz' inter-
rogation of him, as aforestated. Owens had been employed by the Company for
about 4 years , and worked in the permanent mold department with Broz as his
foreman He was discharged on September 21.
Owens testified that on the afternoon of September 21 he had a toothache and
left his work station to get an aspirin Owens stated that when he returned to his
work Broz asked him what the trouble was, and after Owens informed him of his
toothache , Broz then told Owens that he was always complaining , that every time
he looked up Owens was gone , and told him that when an employee was sick he
was supposed to go home Owens then informed Broz that it was too close to quit-
ting time to go home , asked Broz if he was a doctor , stated that he was not leaving
unless he was fired, and also asked Broz if he was "crazy ." Owens testified that
Broz then told him that he was "getting smart" and informed him that he was fired.15
Owens stated that Broz complained about him after he had signed a card for the
Union in January, and that Broz had also registered complaints about him before 16
Owens testified that there are three or four grinders in the department and that he
could produce more than two of them . Owens admitted that on the day of his dis-
charge he had been away from his work station four or five times
Clinton Perkins testified that he had coffee or coke two or three times a day when
he was working for Broz and had no complaints , and that in July he had taken 2
days off without asking permission, but was only told to call in before doing so
Carl McPike stated that he also took three or four coffee breaks each day, and
that there were no complaints . McPike admitted that he had heard Broz complain-
ing about employees not working , and that Broz tries to see that the men stay at
their jobs Roy Watson testified that the average employee took four to five breaks
a day , lasting on the average of 5 minutes each, and that on occasion some of these
breaks lasted even longer . Watson also stated that it was not necessary for an
employee to ask permission to take a break to get coffee or coke or to go to the
bathroom.
14 The complaint alleges that the Respondent refused to reinstate Wilson to his former
position on or about May 9, 1964
15 Owens places the above conversation at about 2.40 p m on September 21. The shift
he was working on had hours from 7 a . m to 3.30 p m
16 Owens was laid off for 2 or 3 days in March when he failed to get permission from
Broz before leaving the plant during an emergency situation involving his family.
LOUISIANA MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1313.
Broz testified that on the morning of September 21, Owens was away from his
work station on two occasions from 10 to 12 minutes Broz stated that in the
afternoon Owens informed him that he did not feel well, and that in the conver-
sation which followed between them Broz got "all shook up" with the remarks that
Owens made, as aforestated, and as a result he was discharged. Broz stated that
union activity had nothing to do with this decision, nor did Owens' testimony in the
first hearing have anything to do with his discharge. Broz admitted that he never
had any difficulty with Owens' work prior to September 21.
It appears to me that Owens was terminated for remarks and statements which
clearly show contemptible insubordination, and as a result Broz lost his temper
and fired Owens on the spot. This is not a situation where there is a definite time
lapse between offensive conduct of an employee and then a discharge by an employer
later on after tempers cool, but here we have statements by Owens completely dis-
regarding any authority of Broz, and the immediate and instinctive reaction of any
boss so confronted. Owens' specific testimony on cross-examination is that after
Broz told him to go home Owens replied, "I ain't leaving, here I am and there is
the door. I ain 't leaving. If you want me out of here, you have to fire me." Owens
then also told Broz, "What is the matter with you, are you crazy. I am not going
home." Then Owens asked Broz, "What in the piss you think you are, a doctor? 1
don't need you to tell me when I am sick." It is also obvious from the record that
this conversation and remarks took place in view of other employees about 2.30 or
2:40 in the afternoon-approximately 1 hour before quitting time. Certainly, if
Broz had tolerated such open and hostile insubordination he would have been
denied any effective authority over his employees from then on. It is also clear to
me that if Owens had gone home as requested, Broz would have done nothing more,
and the incident would have been forgotten. It is further noted that Broz had criti-
cized Owens prior to the above incident, and had also complained about the amount
of time Owens spent in the restroom.
If I were to find for the General Counsel here, I would have to hold that an
employee who becomes active in a union campaign and who testifies in a hearing
thereby gains immunity from discharge even though he openly defies his employer
when they attempt to exercise their managerial rights. Such is not the law Under
the Act an employee can be discharged for any reason whatsoever so long as union
considerations are not the moving cause It has also long been recognized by the
Board and the courts that under the Act it takes more than suspicion and inferences
to prove a wrongful discharge. In the final analysis here the question for determi-
nation is whether Broz was motivated by Owens' insubordination. I find that Broz
was so motivated and instantly reacted as any foreman or supervisor would under
such circumstances
In making my findings as to Owens, I have specifically and carefully evaluated the
Respondent's union animus as demonstrated in the preceding sections of this Deci-
sion . I have further considered the fact that Owens was one of the leaders in the
Union's efforts to organize; and likewise have also taken into account that there may
have been a contrast in treatment between Owens and Perkins on disciplinary actions
involving their leaving the plant without asking permission Nevertheless, on the
basis of this record, the demeanor of the witnesses, and upon the reasons given
above, I must conclude and have concluded that the General Counsel has failed to.
produce a preponderance of substantial evidence in proving that Owens was dis-
criminatorily discharged. For these reasons it will be recommended that the alle-
gation in respect to the discriminatory discharge of Owens be dismissed.
The Objections to the Election
The pleadings and proceedings in this matter, as aforestated, ordered a hearing in
conjunction with the CA cases on the Union's objections Nos. 2, 4, and 5 to the elec-
tion. The critical and only period of time involved in this phase of the case is from
February 5, 1964, when the petition was filed, to April 21, 1964, the date of the elec-
tion Objection No. 2 refers to the activity alleged in the complaint to be violative
of Section 8(a)(1). Objections Nos. 4 and 5 refer to letters distributed by the Com-
pany to its employees, and which are included in the Parties' Joint Exhibit No. 1-A
through H.
789-730-66-vol 152-84
1314 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Objection No. 2
As detailed and found prior herein, I have dismissed portions of the complaints
relative to the paragraphs setting forth certain allegations involving threats and such
related implications. This leaves for consideration here, however, the instances of
interrogations which I have found violative if they fall within the critical time limita-
tions as noted above. A brief summary in this respect shows that on or about Febru-
ary 7 Broz requested that Wilson return to his home with him to get a certain letter
he had received from the Union.17 On February 7, 8, or 9 Broz asked Wilson to
inform him of employees supporting the Union. On or about February 13 Wilson
was asked to take a withdrawal card, and about a week later Wilson was asked by Broz
to write a letter seeking withdrawal from the Union. Shortly before the election Lind-
sey was asked by Broz if he was going to vote for the Union, and was also asked at
this time if he knew of any employees that were. It is also noted that shortly after
February 7 Broz promised Wilson a permanent job if he would continue to help him
in his efforts to defeat the Union. In March, Broz stated to Watson that certain
employees were working for the Union and he could not understand it, and further
asked Watson on many occasions, from February up until the election, which employ-
ees were from the Union and which ones were not.
The above facts show, in summary, that in the critical preelection period at least
3 employees out of a total of approximately 70 eligible voters were subject to coercive
interrogations of various types. The main question is whether the sum total of this
conduct amounts to substantial interference with the election. The Board has held
that a secret ballot election, held under Government supervision and with safeguards
developed through the years, should not lightly be set aside, and that the Board will
exercise that power sparingly, only in cases of "excessive acts" and "conduct so glar-
ing that it is almost certain to have impaired employees' freedom of choice." 18 How-
ever, the Board has a wide degree of discretion in establishing the procedure and
standards necessary to insure a fair and free choice of bargaining representative by
employees, and it has been held that the Board may set aside an election because of
speeches which are not coercive, conduct which does not constitute unfair labor prac-
tices, coercive remarks even if made to relatively few employees, or even if they are
only indirectly or impliedly coercive, if, in the exercise of the Board's discretion, it
appears that such conduct interfered with the employees' freedom of choice.19 Hence,
I must give due weight to the fact that Respondent's conduct in the crucial period,
while involving comparatively few instances and employees in relation to the total
eligible voters, were all unfair labor practices, involving numerous interrogations and
promises by a key management official, who had throughout the campaign kept
extremely close track of employees' union sentiments and the progreess of the Union's
efforts by various means, lawful and unlawful. I cannot agree with Respondent that
the instances of coercive conduct in the crucial period were casual or friendly conver-
sations to be treated as just another subject to talk about, or too few in number to
affect the election results. This is especially pronounced at the time when Broz made
certain statements about the Union to Wilson, and then specifically and directly
asked him to "spread it around to the men." Wilson then did so by telling the employ-
ees that he thought the "Union is a rotten deal." Several of the employees then
became so angry with him that, as Wilson stated, "I figured they was about ready to
whip me." Considering all of the above facts and circumstances, I am led to the
conclusion that Respondent, by subjecting employees to continued interrogations and
promises during the crucial period, engaged in conduct amounting to substantial
interference with the election sufficient to warrant setting it aside. I shall therefore
1x The Respondent maintains that Wilson could not remember whether the letter Broz
inquired about was Joint Exhibit No 1-I{ dated February 6, or whether it was Joint
Exhibit No. 1-I dated January 29. Broz testified it was the letter dated January 29,
and that after getting the letter he gave it to Brown on February 1. A close examination
of all the testimony as to the date of this incident-direct, cross, redirect, recross-
established the credited testimony of Wilson that the inquiry in question occurred sub-
sequent to February 5, and hence such is within the time limitations
Is Liberal Market, Inc, 108 NLRB 14,81 , General Shoe Corporation, 77 NLRB 124;
also see Threads-Incorporated, 124 NLRB 968.
19 Aeronca Mannfactui ing Corporation, 118 NLRB 461, 467, and cases cited in foot-
notes 10 through 20.
LOUISIANA MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1315
sustain the Union's objection No. 2 and recommend that the election be set aside,
and a new election held =°
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent, set forth in section III, above, and occurring in con-
nection with its 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.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain 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.
It will be recommended that the Respondent offer employee Hardy Wilson imme-
diate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to seniority and other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any
loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him,
by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he would have earned as
wages from the date of the discrimination against him to the date of offer of rein-
statemeent less interim earnings, and in a manner consistent with Board policy set out
in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Crossett Lumber Company, 8
NLRB 440, to which shall be added interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum as
prescribed by the Board in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
Having found that some of Respondent's actions described above support the
Union's objection No. 2 in the representation proceeding, and have interfered with
the election and deprived the employees of their freedom of choice, I also recommend
that the election be set aside and a new election be held.
I shall also recommend that the Respondent preserve and, upon request, make
available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records,
social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all
other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due and the right to rein-
statement under the terms of this Recommended Order. In order to make effective
the interdependent guarantees of Section 7 of the Act, I shall recommend that the
Respondent cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaran-
teed in that section. N.L.R.B. v. Express Publishing Company, 312 U.S. 426;
N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F. 2d 532 (C.A. 4).
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case,
-1 make the following
CONCLUSIONS ,OF LAW
1. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
2. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment of Hardy Wil-
son, thereby discouraging membership in the above Union Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3)
-of the Act.
20 The letters by the Company to Its employees In relation to objections Nos. 4 and 5
are clearly expressions of opinion, campaign propaganda, and answers to some of the
matters contained in the Union's campaign Statements made therein contain references
by the Company to "pie-in-the-sky," the "coal miner's union," "Hitler," "free loading,"
and other terms, explanations, possibilities, and exaggerations However, they contain
no threats, and in some instances outline the employees rights to vote, and other em-
ployee and company responsibilities It further appears that the Union had an ample
opportunity to answer the letters, and even did so I have also noted that the letters
marked as "Joint Exhibits Nos. 1-D and 1-G" referred to specific individual employees,
but under the circumstances here I cannot attach any special or unlawful meaning to
-such references, and they appear to be nothing more than merely the writer's opinion.
I shall therefore overrule the Union's objections Nos. 4 and 5.
1316 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. By engaging in interference, restraint, and coercion, the Respondent has.
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section:
8(a)( I) of the Act.
5. Between February 5 and April 21, 1964, the Respondent engaged in conduct
interfering with its employees' freedom of choice in selecting a bargaining repre-
sentative.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the
entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, it is recommended that the Respondent, Louisiana Manufac-
turing Company, Louisiana, Missouri, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discouraging membership in the Union, or in any other labor organization,
by discharging, refusing to reinstate, or in any other manner discriminating against
employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition
of employment.
(b) Interrogating its employees concerning their own or other employees' mem-
bership in or activities on behalf of District 50, United Mine Workers of America,
of America, or any other labor organization, in a manner constituting interference,
restraint, or coercion in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
(c)Requesting its employees to supply it with copies of union literature and infor-
mation about the union activities of Respondent's other employees.
(d) Soliciting its employees to abandon their membership in or activities on behalf
of District 50, United Mine Workers of America, or any other labor organization.
(e) Offering its employees increased job security or other benefits in a manner
constituting interference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
(f) In any other manner interfering with , restraining , or coercing employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2 Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Offer Hardy Wilson full reinstatment to his former or a substantially equiva-
lent position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights or privileges, and make
him whole in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Post at its plant and offices at Louisiana, Missouri, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 21 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 14, shall after being signed by Respondent's representative, be posted
by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for 60 con-
secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to 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.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply
herewith 22
It is recommended that the election which was conducted on April 21, 1964, be set
aside and that a new election be directed at an appropriate time by the Regional
Director for Region ld. It is also recommended that the allegations with respect to
Richard Owens, the allegation with respect to Emery Weeks, and the allegations with
respect to threats of moving or closing the plant and such related allegations, be dis-
missed. It is further recommended that the Union's objections Nos. 4 and 5 be
overruled.
It is further recommended that, unless within 20 days from the date of the receipt
of the Trial Examiner's Decision herein, the Respondent shall notify the said Regional
21In the event that this Recommended Oider be adopted by the hoard, the woide "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted foi the words "a Decision
and Order"
22 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days
fioni the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith"
DAL-TEX OPTICAL COMPANY, INC. 1317
'Director , in writing , that it will comply with the foregoing Recommended Order, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring Respondent to take the
:aforesaid action.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in District 50, United Mine Workers
of America, or any other labor organization, by discharging or refusing to rein-
state any of our employees, or in any manner discriminating in regard to their
hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning their interest in, and inten-
tions with respect to, joining the above-named or any other labor organzation,
in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion violative of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT request employees to supply copies of union literature about
union activities.
WE WILL NOT solicit employees to abandon their membership in the above-
named Union or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT offer employees permanent jobs or other benefits in a manner
violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT interfere with the right of our employees to make a free choice
in any election ordered by the National Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organi-
zations, to join or assist the above-named 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, and to refrain from any and all such activities.
WE WILL offer to Hardy Wilson immediate and full reinstatement to his for-
mer or a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to seniority and other
rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result
of the discrimination against him.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming or remain-
ing members of the above-named Union, or any other labor organization.
LOUISIANA MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employee, if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States, of his right to full reinstatement upon application
in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and
Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 4459 Fed-
eral Building, 1520 Market Street, St. Louis, Missouri, Telephone No. Main 2-4142,
if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Dal-Tex Optical Company , Inc. and International Union of Elec-
trical , Radio and Machine Workers , AFL-CIO . Cases Nos. 16-
CA-2069, 16-CA-.093, and 16-CA-92119. June 9, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 6, 1965, Trial Examiner Max Rosenberg issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had
152 NLRB No. 135.