National Phosphate Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 13, 1974

211 N.L.R.B. 567 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

NATIONAL PHOSPHATE CORP. 567
National Phosphate Corp . and Local Union No. 393 of
the Laborers International Union of North Ameri-
ca, AFL-CIO. Case 38-CA-1845
June 13, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On March 29, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
Paul E. Weil issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed
a brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's
Decision.
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.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Respondent, National Phosphate
Corp., Marseilles , Illinois, its officers , agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
said recommended Order.
I The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board 's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd . 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
PAUL E. WELL, Administrative Law Judge: On October
25, 1973, Local Union No. 393 of the Laborers Interna-
tional Union of North America, AFL-CIO, hereinafter
called the Union, filed with the Officer-in-Charge of
Subregion 38 of the National Labor Relations Board,
hereinafter called the Board, a charge alleging that
National Phosphate Corp., hereinafter called Respondent,
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, by the discharge of an
employee, Steve Calloway, because of his activities on
behalf of the Union and by independent violations of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. On December 4, 1973, the
Officer-in-Charge on behalf of the Board's General
Counsel issued a complaint and notice of hearing alleging
that Respondent had engaged in various acts of miscon-
duct in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and had
discharged Steve Calloway because of his union activity.
By its duly filed answer, Respondent denied the commis-
sion of any unfair labor practices although it admitted the
discharge of Calloway. The matter came on for hearing
before me on January 22, 1974, at Ottawa, Illinois. All
parties were present, all represented by counsel, and all
parties had an opportunity to call and examine witnesses,
adduce relevant and material evidence, argue orally on the
record, and file briefs. Briefs have been received from the
General Counsel and Respondent. Upon the entire record
in this case and in consideration of the briefs, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
It is alleged and admitted that Respondent is a
corporation engaged at Marseilles, Illinois, in the manufac-
ture of fertilizer which it annually ships from its Marseilles
plant to points outside the State of Illinois valued in excess
of $50,000. Respondent is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is admittedly a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The Union in the fall of 1973 conducted an organizing
campaign among Respondent's employees at the Mar-
seilles, Illinois, plant. The campaign culminated in the filing
of a petition on October 17 seeking an election in an
appropriate unit of Respondent's employees. Pursuant to a
stipulation for a consent election signed on November 14,
an election was conducted on December 13 which the
Union lost by a vote of 68 to 11. These results were
certified on December 26.1
Respondent's plant has five departments: maintenance
department, acid department , di-ammonium phosphates or
D.A.P. department, laboratory, and the blend plant. With
the exception of the maintenance department the plant
operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Each of the
departments has four crews of employees, one working at
all times to effect the round-the-clock production. The
D.A.P. department shift basically consists of an A
I All dates hereinafter are in the year 1973 unless otherwise specified.
211 NLRB No. 82
368 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Operator who handles the control board in this automated
plant, a B Operator who assists the A Operator and makes
tests of the product as it runs through the processes, a C
Operator , and a D Operator. Apparently the C and D
Operators did laboring work.
In the D .A.P. department it appears that the leading
union adherent was Ronald Halterman , an A Operator,
who secured a number of cards from a maintenance man,
solicited his fellow employees to sign them , leaving cards
on the control console for employees on the other shifts,
collecting the signed cards and returning them to the
maintenance man from whom he got them . Early in
October Donald Strickland, a supervisor in D.A.P., asked
Halterman if he had a union card for him . Halterman
answered that he did not but Strickland could get one from
another employee and Strickland asked where Halterman
had gotten the cards . Halterman answered they were there
when he got there.
On October 10 Strickland was engaged in a discussion
which appears to have been somewhat rancorous with
Halterman during the course of which Halterman told
Strickland that if there was a union he couldn't do some
things that Halterman blamed Strickland for doing.
According to Halterman 's testimony Strickland asked how
the Union got started . Halterman answered that as far as
he knew it started outside the plant and Strickland
answered , "Well I know how it got started, I know a lot of
things, I know, for example, when you worked here in
March of this year that you were big on the Union." 2
Halterman asked him how he came to this knowledge and
Strickland answered that he had a good source and that he
knew that Terry Navarro, another A Operator, and
Halterman were passing out union cards. Halterman
answered , "Yeah, but don't forget about Steve Calloway"
and Strickland said , "I thought Steve was in on this."
Strickland went on and asked Halterman about an alleged
secret meeting that had taken place in the laboratory the
prior night and Halterman said that the meeting wasn't
secret but that some of the employees had gotten together
in the lab to air their opinions for and against the Union.
Later, on the evening of October 10, Strickland again
came to Halterman and engaged him in a conversation
concerning the Union. Strickland asked Halterman where
he heard about the Union. Halterman told him that he had
heard about it in a local bar and called upon his B
Operator who was present to substantiate that he had been
present when the Union was first discussed with Halter-
man?
Donald Strickland , who identified himself as the D.A.P.
superintendent , testified that he had only one conversation
with Halterman in which the Union was mentioned and
placed this as the latter conversation of October 10. He
testified he didn't recall how the subject of the Union came
up but that Halterman said that he had been passing out
cards and wanted to know if he was going to be fired.
Strickland answered that no one is going to be fired for
anything of that nature and no more conversation took
place concerning the Union.
I found Halterman to be a credible witness, I believe that
2 Halterman had been employed earlier in the year , had left Respon-
dent's employ, and returned before October.
it is unlikely that he would have asked Strickland if he was
going to be fired for passing out cards 2 hours before he
resigned . This is especially so in view of the fact that it
appears that Halterman had made up his mind prior to this
evening to resign , for reasons having nothing to do with the
union organization . I credit Halterman's testimony and
find that, by the statements in the first conversation
reported by Halterman, Strickland interrogated him in
violation of Section 8(aXl) of the Act. By the statements in
the second conversation reported by Halterman , the first
on October 10, Strickland interrogated Halterman and led
him to believe that the union activities of the employees
were under covert surveillance, again in violation of
Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. The third conversation in which
Strickland attempted to ascertain where Halterman first
learned about the Union is further interrogation in
violation of Section 8(aXl) of the Act.
William Maurer , a C Operator, testified that in late
October Superintendent Strickland engaged him in a
conversation when he was picking up his paycheck in the
company office. Strickland asked Maurer how he felt
about the Union and Maurer answered that he hadn't
made up his mind . Strickland then went on to make a
comparison between the conditions offered by Respondent
and those offered by the Union. With regard to this
conversation, Strickland testified that Maurer, during a
conversation about a transfer or a pay increase, asked him
if he thought the Union was going to get in . Strickland
answered that he didn't know and asked Maurer how he
felt about it, to which Maurer responded that he was going
to the union hall and find out. Strickland said that that
would be a good thing for him to do and quoted Maurer as
saying he was going to go to the union hall to drink their
free beer and was not interested in the Union.
I find that this interrogation is no less violative if it was
preceded by the question Strickland attributed to Maurer.
However, I find difficulty in believing Strickland's story
that, after Maurer said he was going to find out about the
Union to make his mind up, he then said he wasn't
interested and was going to the union hall only to drink
beer . I credit Maurer 's testimony and find that by this
interrogation Respondent, by the actions of its agent
Strickland, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
On the night of October 30, the Union held a meeting at
its hall in Marseilles to which all employees were invited by
newspaper advertising. Roger Prophet, Respondent's
personnel manager, and Moody Green, the plant manager,
drove together to the union hall about the time the meeting
was supposed to open , admittedly, in order to ascertain the
extent of employee interest in the Union. They drove back
and forth at a slow pace in front of the union hall while the
employees were assembling there and departed after the
meeting commenced . According to the testimony of
employees and the Union' s president, they parked on a
parking lot beside the union hall at which point one of
them got out of the car briefly and got back in the car
before they drove away. According to the testimony of
Prophet and Green, they could not find the union hall
although they admitted driving up and down the street
3 After the close of the shift in which the last two conversations took
place, Halterman resigned his employment with Respondent without notice.
NATIONAL PHOSPHATE CORP. 569
where they thought it should be and parking in a parking
lot along side a lighted building.
I find that Respondent, engaged in surveillance of the
union meeting in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I
find that even if Prophet and Green were not aware that
they were at the union hall , when they were there, their
intention was to engage in surveillance and the impression
they left with the employees was that they were engaging in
surveillance . I find it difficult to believe that Green, who
had been employed at this plant since October 1972, and
Prophet, who had been there approximately a year and a
half, would have had any difficulty in finding the union
hall, the address of which was advertised in the paper in
this small town in Illinois .4 I find that by this surveillance
by its plant manager and its personnel manager Respon-
dent engaged in surveillance in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
B. The Discharge
Steve B. Calloway was employed in September 1972 by
Respondent as a laborer and worked his way up to A
Operator in the D.A.P. plant by October 23 when he was
discharged. During the year 1973 Calloway had suffered a
lung infection which caused him to miss a considerable
amount of work in January and February and, in addition,
he had had an automobile accident resulting in his absence
for 13 consecutive workdays and had been off sick on
various other occasions . He had been given a disciplinary
suspension the first 3 days of January because of
absenteeism in 1972 and was reprimanded by Superinten-
dent Strickland on September 17 for his failure to report on
September 15 and for taking off on September 16 allegedly
under doctor's orders. On both September 15 and 16
supervisors of Respondent had attempted to reach him at
home by telephone and he had not been home. Strickland
was informed that Calloway was at another company's
picnic on September 16 when he called. On this occasion,
Strickland placed in Calloway's personnel file a memoran-
dum detailing the above and recommending that one more
unexcused absence on Calloway's part should result in his
termination . According to Calloway, the following work-
day when he came in, Strickland said something to the
effect that he should call in , but did not reprimand him. I
credit Strickland's testimony that he reprimanded Callo-
way on this occasion. On June 11, 1973, Calloway had
been given a warning stating that as of that date he had
been absent from work a total of 33 days for various
reasons and ending with the following language:
It is expected that your attendance record will improve
immediately or we will assume you do not care about
your job and act accordingly regarding your continued
employment.
Nevertheless, Calloway continued to be absent occasional-
ly and by the time of his discharge had racked up 46 days
absent during the year, the worst absentee record in the
plant according to the testimony of the Personnel Manager
Prophet. Because of the round-the-clock nature of Respon-
dent's operation, it is necessary when an A Operator is
absent that the operator from the preceding shift work
overtime or another operator be called in for overtime
work. Accordingly, every time an employee is absent his
job is covered at a time-and-a-half rate. For this reason
Respondent has been attempting for a lengthy period of
time to cut down on absenteeism. The supervisor who
preceded Strickland, Donald Planchard, on August 23,
1973, wrote a memorandum to the employees stating that
absenteeism had reached proportions that would not be
tolerated and warning employees with excess absentee
records that continued poor attendance would result in
strict disciplinary action. When Strickland replaced the
former superintendent, he reissued the same policy,
warning the employees that it would be adhered to strictly.
The policy requires that employees who miss regularly
scheduled work without notifying the plant promptly
would be disciplined.
During the week preceding his discharge Calloway was
engaged in the purchase of a new car in Marseilles. During
this week he was working on the evening shift. According
to his timecard he worked from 6 p.m., on Sunday night,
October 14, until 2:30 the next morning . The next day he
clocked in at 12:44, which is to say shortly before 1 p.m.,
and worked until 2:49 on Tuesday morning. During this
time he asked for 2 hours off in order to attend to the
details of buying a new car and was granted it. According-
ly, he came in at 4:34 on Tuesday and worked until 4:12
Wednesday morning. Because he thought it was necessary
to go to the bank again he called Wednesday afternoon
and asked for the night off. He thought that, because he
had worked 3-3/4 hours overtime the night before, he had
been promised a night off by Strickland. He called
Strickland and asked him for the night off and Strickland
told him that he would not give him the whole night off but
he would give him 2 hours and told him to report to work
by 6 p.m. Calloway was dissatisfied with this arrangement
and sought and received Strickland's permission to call
Moody Green, the plant manager. He did so and according
to his testimony Green refused to change the hours that
Strickland had granted Calloway and pointed out that it
was already after 4 o'clock and that the bank was closed so
that Calloway could not go to the bank. Calloway testified
that after talking with Green he called the bank and found
out that they were reopening again at 6:30 p.m. and he
could complete his business then. He again called Green
and told him that the bank would open at 6:30 and he
could finish his business. According to Calloway, Green
made no comment other than to tell him to call in if he
would be later than 8 o'clock.
Calloway was at the bank at 6:30 and found that the
transaction had been taken care of and he could pick up
his car. He immediately went to the automobile dealer,
where he picked up his car, drove to the plant and arrived
there at ^ or about 7:15. In the meantime, Strickland had
talked to Green. Green told him that he had not changed
Strickland's order and that Calloway was to be in at 6 p.m.
Strickland left for the day informing Weaver, Calloway's
immediate supervisor, that Calloway was supposed to be in
4 According to Rand McNally & Company Publications the population
of Marseilles is 4,320.
570 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at 6 o'clock and if he wasn't in shortly thereafter that he
should call out another man and send Calloway home
when he arrived. On Calloway's arrival at 7:15, Weaver
met him at the timeclock and sent him home.
The following Monday Calloway came back to the plant
and met with Strickland before 8 in the morning. After
some discussion with Calloway, Strickland said that
inasmuch as Calloway had showed up for work and
apparently had made some effort to hold his job he
wouldn't fire him but would leave it up to Foreman
Weaver what they would do with him. He suggested that
Calloway talk to Weaver and come back the following day.
On Tuesday Calloway returned to the plant, having been
unable to contact Weaver. Calloway again met Strickland
about 8 o'clock and told him he had been unable to reach
Wear. Strickland told him that Weaver wasn't going to
be in that day but that he had talked to him the night
before and Weaver didn't want him back on his shift.
From thi Calloway assumed that he was going to get a
shift"change under a different foreman and started talking
about a 3-day suspension. Strickland told him that he
wouldn't give him a shift change and shove him on to
another supervisor and, according to Calloway's testimony,
interjected at this point, "We know you are a union
representative and that you are passing out cards."
Strickland then asked Calloway how he would vote in the
election and Calloway answered that he would vote yes.
Strickland asked who was passing out cards and Calloway
told him he didn't know. He then quoted Strickland as
saying again that Calloway was a union representative
passing out cards and that, "We didn't want your type
around here." Strickland then left the room, came back in
20 minutes and took Calloway to Prophet's office. On this
occasion , Strickland, according to Calloway, asked Proph-
et if he would transfer Calloway to another department
and Prophet refused to do so and completed the discharge
of Calloway.
Strickland denied any comments regarding the Union
alleged by Calloway to have been made by him on this
occasion . Other than that, his account of the discharge was
approximately the same as that of Calloway. Strickland
testified that he would have permitted Calloway to remain
if Weaver had agreed but that in the face of Weaver's
refusal to keep Calloway on his shift he would not keep
Calloway in his department. He agreed that he took
Calloway to Prophet and suggested to Prophet that
Calloway might be used in another department but that
Prophet had refused to permit Calloway to remain in
Respondent 's employ. This is corroborated by Prophet.
The General Counsel contends that Calloway was
discharged because of his union activities or because of
Respondent's suspicion of his union activities and that this
is disclosed by the remarks made by Strickland to
Calloway at the time of the discharge. I do not credit
Calloway's testimony that Strickland made these state-
ments about the Union attributed to him by Calloway.
Strickland testified that it was pretty well known who was
passing out cards in the plant and he testified that he had a
conversation with Calloway before his discharge in which
the Union came up and Calloway complained that a fellow
employee had squealed on him for passing out cards and
asked whether he would be fired. Strickland answered that
Calloway would not be fired for this.
Calloway testified that he engaged in no union activities
prior to his discharge. He first went to a union meeting the
night after he was discharged and he himself did not pass
out any cards, although he did not disturb the cards that
had been left on the console by Halterman but left them
there for the other shift. I believe that, under all
circumstances of this case, it is a fair inference that
Respondent indeed knew who the leading union organizers
were in the plant. The only evidence Respondent had that
Calloway was an organizer was in the statement made by
Halterman to Strickland 2 weeks before the discharge.
How this came to the attention of Calloway does not
appear on the record. I am not convinced that Calloway's
account of his terminal interview with Mr. Strickland is
accurate, nor am I convinced that Calloway was dis-
charged because of his alleged union activities. There is no
question that his absentee record was very bad and that he
had been warned that he would be discharged if he
continued being absent or late to work. There is no
evidence that Moody Green ever informed Strickland that
he had countermanded Strickland's order and given
Calloway until 8 p.m. to come to work. I believe on the
contrary that the most that Green said to Calloway was
that he should be in by 6 p.m., and that if he was going to
be later he should call in. Strickland having no word to the
contrary from Green was prepared to discipline Calloway
if he did not get in by 6 o'clock and accordingly left word
that he was to be sent home if he came in after that time.
Thereafter, Strickland obviously was prepared to adminis-
ter some discipline less than discharge except that Weaver
refused to accept Calloway back on his shift and Strickland
was not prepared to put him on another supervisor's shift
in view of his bad record. Strickland still was prepared,
however, to effect a transfer to another department if
Prophet would permit this, but Prophet refused to permit
this and made the decision that Calloway must be
discharged. I find I cannot reach the inference that
Calloway was discharged for union activity in the face of
the clear evidence of cause for the discharge. Accordingly,
I find that the General Counsel has failed to show a
violation by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.
I recommend that the 8(a)(3) allegation be dismissed.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with Respondent's opera-
tions described in section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow thereof.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon
the entire record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. National Phosphate Corp. is an employer engaged in
NATIONAL PHOSPHATE CORP. 571
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
2. Local Onion No. 193 of the Laborers International
Union of North America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By interrogating its employees concerning their and
other employees' union activities, by creating the impres-
sion among its employees that their union activities were
being kept under surveillance by management, and by
engaging in surveillance of its employees ' union activities,
Respondent interfered with, coerced , and restrained its
employees in the exercise of their right guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
5. The discharge of Steve Calloway is not an unfair
labor practice within the meaning of the Act.
THE REMEDY
It having been found that Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices it is recommended that it
cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain
affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
Respondent contends that in the event it is found to have
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, by the posting of a
notice to all employees by Plant Manager Green on
December 6, 1973, it has remedied any coercive impact of
the unfair labor practices and therefore should not be
required to post a notice or take other remedial action. The
memorandum states as follows: _
Some apparently feel that , if the Union loses, those
who signed union cards or have expressed themselves
for the Union will lose their jobs after the election, or
that pay rates and benefits will be reduced . THIS IS
ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE! Such an act by the
Company would not only be STUPID-it would also
be illegal.
Employees of this plant are respected as individuals,
and are protected in their right to freely express
themselves as American citizens . We do not question
the right of any employee to be for the Union, although
we would seriously disagree with his judgment. We are
not concerned about what has happened in the past.
The only thing that is of importance is what happens on
election day.
It is signed by E. M . Green, plant manager.
Under some circumstances , the Board has found that
unfair labor practices are satisfactorily remedied by actions
similar to that taken by Respondent herein . However, in
those cases the Board has found that the notice of
Respondent specifically disavows the unfair labor practices
found and disavows any intention to retaliate . The notice
quoted above makes neither such disavowal but merely
assures employees that they will not be fired or have their
wages reduced because of the union campaign . I find that
the notice does not satisfactorily reassure the employees
and that the posting of a formal Board notice in the instant
case is warranted . Accordingly, upon the foregoing
findings of fact and conclusions of law and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act I hereby issue the following
recommended:
ORDERS
Respondent, National Phosphate Corp., Mars-
eilles , Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating its employees concerning their union
activities or the union activities of other employees.
(b) Creating the impression among its employees that
their union activities were being kept under surveillance.
(c) Engaging in surveillance of its employees' union
activities.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of
their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist any
labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection or to refrain from any or
all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its Marseilles, Illinois, plant copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 6 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Officer-in-Charge for
Subregion 38, after being duly signed by Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by it immediate-
ly upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent
to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Officer-in-Charge for Subregion 38, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint herein be
dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not
specifically found.
S 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.
6 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a trial at which all sides had the opportunity to
572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
present their 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 keep our
word about what we say in this notice.
The Act gives all employees these rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form , join, or help unions
To bargain collectively through a representa-
tive of their own choosing Dated By
To act together for collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection and
To refrain from any and all these things.
WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with these
rights. More specifically,
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees
concerning their or other employees ' activities on
behalf of Local Union No. 393 of the Laborers
International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of our employ-
ees' union activities, nor create the impression among
our employees that we are engaging in such surveil-
lance.
NATIONAL PHOSPHATE
CORP.
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board 's Office,
Savings Center Tower, 10th Floor, 411 Hamilton Boule-
vard, Peoria , Illinois 61602, Telephone 309-673-9283.