Pontotoc Wire Products Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 15, 1975

220 N.L.R.B. 276 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pontotoc Wire Products Company and United Rub-
ber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of Ameri-
ca, Afl' L-CIIO. Cases 26-CA-5289 and
26-CA-5319
September 15, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND PENELLO
On March 25, 1975, Administrative Law Judge
Thomas D. Johnston issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm all rulings,' findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge with
the exeption of those below discussed, and to adopt
his recommended Order as hereafter modified.
1. The Administrative Law Judge found that the
Company through the statements on September 27,
1974, of Tommy Morris, the third-shift supervisor,
unlawfully threatened employees with the loss of tak-
ing break privileges in his office because they had
given testimony to a Board agent. We find, however,
that the circumstances of import to an evaluation of
Morris' statement do not support finding it to be in
violation of the Act. The undisputed evidence clearly
shows that the Union's organizational campaign was
full of "dirty tricks." At the hearing, some of the
union supporter employees admitted that two of the
three present in Morris' office on September 27 had
engaged in a concerted effort to entrap Morris into
making unlawful statements. These same union sup-
' The Respondent excepted to the Administrative Law Judge's refusal to
admit into evidence a copy of a letter which Respondent mailed to its em-
ployees for the purpose of disavowing and retracting certain threats which
Respondent allegedly made. We agree with the Administrative Law Judge's
conclusion that the letter was not a complete disavowal and was an insuffi-
cient legal retraction of certain conduct which we have found violated Sec.
8(a)(1) of the Act. Nevertheless, we think the better practice in this situation
would have been to admit the letter into evidence. In any event, we have
considered the letter and rejected Respondent's contention concerning it.
Thus, no prejudice has been sustained by Respondent because of the ruling
by the Administrative Law Judge.2
The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to over-
rule 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 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
porters also admitted that they had submitted to the
Board perjured affidavits which falsely accused Mor-
ris of making illegal statements. Thus, in the af-
ternoon of September 27, at a time he normally
would have been sleeping, Morris spent several hours
responding to the inquiries of a Board investigator
regarding statements which the affidavits falsely al-
leged that he had made. Therefore, Morris testified
that when he began work that evening he was both
"tired and mad." He was "mad" because, as he put
it, the employees had been "lying" about him and he
did not like it. In his anger, he told the employees
who gathered in his office that evening that in the
future they should take their breaks in the appointed
break area and not in his office, and that if they
needed to come into his office to see him they should
come in one at a time. However, according to the
credited testimony, despite Morris' statement, the
employees have continued to gather and take their
breaks in Morris' office.
In the above factual context, we are unwilling to
conclude that Morris' statements to the employees
represented anything more than an understandable
display of anger provoked by his belief-well found-
ed as the events of the hearing proved-that one or
more of those who used his office for their breaks
had lied about him to the Board. We therefore find
no 8(a)(1) violation.
2. We deem it unnecessary to pass upon the validi-
ty of that part of the Administrative Law Judge's
Decision as predicates 8(a)(1) findings on the facts
that Supervisor Horton asked employee Davis what
he thought about the Union, and Supervisor Fergu-
son asked employee Putte how he thought the Union
was going. In light of other facts establishing 8(a)(1)
violations, including unlawful interrogation of other
employees concerning union activities, our dispos-
tion of exceptions taken by Respondent to the find-
ings would neither add to, nor detract from, the
terms of our remedial order herein.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified
below, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Pon-
totoc Wire Products Company, Pontotoc, Mississip-
pi, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the said recommended
Order, as so modified:
1. Delete from paragraph 1(a) the phrase "and
threatening employees with the loss of break periods
in the office because they give testimony to an agent
220 NLRB No. 41
PONTOTOC WIRE PRODUCTS COMPANY
of the National Labor Relations Board."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our em-
ployees concerning their union activities and
what they think about the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that
should they select the Union as their bargaining
representative, the Company would be harder
on them and would restrict their breaks.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that
should they vote the Union in it would not get a
contract and the employees would not get any
more from the Company than they already have.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees they
cannot get a job anywhere in Pontotoc, Missis-
sippi, because they sign union handbills.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their rights to self-organiza-
tion, to form, join, or assist the United Rubber,
Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of Ameri-
ca, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choosing or to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from any or all such activities.
PONTOTOC WIRE PRODUCTS COMPANY
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS D. JOHNSTON , Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard at Pontotoc , Mississippi , on January 13
through 16, 1975, pursuant to a charge filed on September
9, 1974,1 by the United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plas-
tic Workers of America , AFL-CIO (herein referred to as
the Union), in Case 26-CA-5289 and a first amended
charge 2 filed on October 24 by the Union in Case 26-
CA-5319 and a consolidated complaint issued on Novem-
ber 7.
The consolidated complaint alleged 3 that Pontotoc Wire
i All dates referred to are in 1974 unless otherwise stated.
2 The original charge in Case 26-CA-5319 was filed on September 30
3 Certain other allegations were either withdrawn or dismissed at the
hearing . Further , the testimonies of Rodney Russell and Larry Mooneyhan,
277
Products Company (herein referred to as the Respondent)
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended (herein referred to as the Act), by
unlawfully interrogating employees concerning their union
memberships, activities, and desires and about what they
wanted from the Respondent; threatened those employees
for the Union they did not know what they were getting
into and the Respondent would be harder on them and
restrict their breaktime benefits if the Union came into the
plant; threatened employees the Union would not get a
contract and they would not get any more than they al-
ready had, that those employees who had signed the union
handbill were being blackballed at other Pontotoc plants,
and the Union would be out if a contract was not negotiat-
ed within 12 months; threatened employees with the loss of
break privileges in the office because employees had given
testimony to the Board; announced more stringent en-
forcement of plant rules because of employees' union ac-
tivities; ° informed an employee his wife was was not al-
lowed to come into the plant because of his union
activities; threatened an employee that wearing union in-
signia meant the employee was mad at a supervisor; and
by issuing a reprimand to employee Joseph Payne and an
oral warning to employee Roger Davis and refusing to res-
cind them because of their union or concerted activities.
Respondent in its answer filed on November 29 denied
having violated the Act.
The parties at the hearing were afforded full opportunity
to introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-exam-
ine witnesses , to argue orally on the record, and to submit
briefs.
Upon the entire record 5 in this case and from my obser-
vation of the witnesses and after due consideration of the
briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent,' I
hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent , a corporation, has an office and place of
business located at'Pontotoc, Mississippi , where it is en-
gaged in the business of manufacturing magnetic wire and
related products. During the 12-month period preceding
November 7, 1974, Respondent in the operation of its Pon-
totoc plant purchased and received products valued in ex-
cess of $50 ,000 directly from points located outside the
State of Mississippi and sold and shipped products valued
in excess of $50,000 from its Pontotoc plant directly to
points located outside the State of Mississippi.
Respondent admitted , and I find , that it is an employer
who were discredited as witnesses, have not been considered for those rea-
sons given at the hearing
° This announcement as set forth in the General Counsel's more definite
statement allegedly occurred when Respondent 's supervisor , Tommy Mor-
ris, told Respondent's employees "he was going to have to start enforcing a
list of plant rules which he read to or discussed with the employees "
5 The General Counsel 's opposed motion to correct the record is hereby
granted except for those corrections urged on p 19, 17, and on p 444, 1
21, where the words "multiplex" and "plan" have already been corrected by
the court reporter. Respondent's proposed corrections are granted
6 The Charging Party did not submit a brief
278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent admitted, and I find, that the United Rub-
ber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
111. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Respondent operates a plant located at Pontotoc, Missis-
sippi, where it is engaged in the business of manufacturing
magnetic wire and related products. Included among its
supervisory personnel are Plant Manager Donald Stephan,
Shift Supervisor Tommy Morris, Quality Control Supervi-
sor Van Horton, and Plant Superintendent Billy Ferguson?
The Union began an organizing campaign among
Respondent's employees. On July 15 it filed a representa-
tion petition seeking to represent the Respondent 's produc-
tion and maintenance employees. An election was held on
August 16 which the Union won. However, pursuant to a
stipulation , the election was set aside and a second election
was held on December 6 in which a majority of the ballots
were cast against the Union and the results of that election
were certified on December 16.
These proceedings arose out of that organizational cam-
paign.
B. Interference With and Restraint and Coercion of
Respondent's Employees
The General Counsel presented a number of witnesses
who testified to certain conduct engaged in by
Respondent's supervisory personnel which, except for cer-
tain incidents, they denied.
Roger Davis, an alleged discriminatee, testified about
July 26, Quality Control Supervisor Horton accompanied
him in his automobile to look at a tractor. During the re-
turn trip Davis stated Horton asked him what he thought
about the Union, whereupon he replied he didn't know.
Horton then commented it was getting pretty serious. Af-
terwards they both laughed.
Quality Control Supervisor Horton admitted having
asked Davis what he thought about the union deal they
had going at the plant whereupon Davis told him he didn't
know and sort of shrugged it off.
Based upon both their testimonies I find Quality Control
Supervisor Horton interrogated Davis concerning what he
thought about the Union.
Douglas Putte testified in August while at a service sta-
tion he had a conversation with the Plant Superintendent
Ferguson who was also there. During the conversation
Putte stated Ferguson asked him how he thought the
Union was going to go whereupon he told Ferguson he
r Respondent admitted, and I find, that these four individuals were super-
visors within the meaning of the Act.
didn't know and it could go either way but he didn't think
they had anything to worry about.
Plant Superintendent Ferguson acknowledged having
asked Putte about how the Union was going down there.
According to Ferguson when Putte replied he didn't know
but hoped it didn't come in, he informed Putte it was left
up to the employees.
Based upon both their testimonies I find Plant Superin-
tendent Ferguson interrogated Putte concerning what he
thought about the Union.
David Hattox stated on July 30 after returning to work
following an accident he asked Plant Superintendent Fer-
guson about some union buttons which he had observed
the employees wearing. Hattox did not recall Ferguson's
answer but stated Ferguson then made the statement he
dust hoped they knew what they were doing and asked him
if he knew what they wanted. After replying he guessed
more money, Hattox returned to work. Under cross-exami-
nation Hattox said Ferguson also told him the employees
had their rights and they could do what they wanted. Hat-
tox, who had previously engaged in union activities at the
plant and started wearing a union button that same eve-
ning, acknowledged he suspected what the union buttons
were when he asked Ferguson.
Plant Superintendent Ferguson not only denied the re-
marks attributed to him by Hattox but denied ever having
a conversation with him concerning the Union. According
to Ferguson, Hattox had not only been off work for medi-
cal reasons but had been suspended for being late for work
and on the same day he had returned to work he was again
late and was sent home before being recalled later that
day.8
I credit the testimony of Plant Superintendent Ferguson
rather than Hattox who, I find, was a less credible witness.
On August 21 Polly Britt visited her husband employee
Jerry Britt in the production area of the plant. While there
she was introduced by him to Plant Manager Stephan. Ac-
cording to Jerry Britt, who wore a union button from July
to September, shortly after she had left Plant Superinten-
dent Ferguson accompanied by Britt's supervisor Shift Su-
pervisor Shirley Grisham 9 asked him if his wife had been
there. Upon replying she had Ferguson told him there were
no hard feelings but for him to ask her not to come into the
plant anymore because their insurance did not cover her if
she got hurt.
Britt stated on three or four occasions previously his wife
had visited him in the plant without any foreman ever tell-
ing him she could not come into the plant. Among other
nonemployees Britt stated he had observed in the plant
were Charles Waldron's mother, H. D. Grisham' s wife,
and Tommy Morris' children.
Under cross-examination Britt stated Ferguson told him
if his wife came in again she should wait in the lobby until
someone could get him so he could talk to her. Britt further
acknowledged he had previously heard there was a rule
that only employees were supposed to be in the plant and
with respect to those occasions when he had seen other
8 Respondent 's records show Ferguson had been off work both for medi-
cal and disciplinary reasons
9 The evidence did not establish whether Shirley Grisham was a supervi-
sor within the meaning of the Act.
PONTOTOC WIRE PRODUCTS COMPANY
nonemployees in the plant he did not know whether any
supervisors had observed them. Britt further acknowledged
he had recently observed Shift Supervisor Grisham ask Bill
Carlisle, an employee on military leave, to leave the plant.1°
Polly Britt, a former employee, testified she had visited
her husband on two or three occasions previously and no
one had ever told her she could not come into the plant.
According to her on two occasions she had spoken to Shift
Supervisor Grisham as well as two of her aunts who
worked there, one of whom was Shift Supervisor Grisham's
wife. Polly Britt stated on one occasion which had oc-
curred 6 or 8 months before her August 21 visit Shift Su-
pervisor Grisham had also spoken to her while she was in
the plant.
Plant Superintendent Ferguson testified after Plant
Manager Stephan had informed him Jerry Britt's wife had
been in the plant 11 he informed Britt in the presence of
Shift Supervisor Grisham that he would appreciate if Britt
would tell his wife to wait out in the lobby the next time
and some of them would get him so he could talk to her
because for insurance purposes they weren 't allowed to
have anyone there."
Plant Superintendent Ferguson, Shift Supervisor Gris-
ham, and Shift Supervisor Morris, in addition to employees
H. D. Grisham and Charles Waldron, all testified
Respondent 's rules prohibited nonemployees from being in
the production areas . According to Plant Superintendent
Ferguson those persons can see employees in the lobby.
Both Shift Supervisor Grisham and Plant Superintendent
Ferguson testified this rule was enforced.
H. D. Grisham, whose testimony was corroborated by
his brother, Shift Supervisor Shirley Grisham, stated that
about January when his wife came into the plant to see him
Shift Supervisor Grisham sent her back to the lounge and
informed him his wife was not supposed to be in the plant.
According to H. D. Grisham, on another occasion in No-
vember when his wife came into the plant he took her out
himself. However, there was no evidence any of the super-
visors had seen her on that occasion.
Charles Waldron testified when his mother came into the
plant in September he took her to the lobby himself and
did not know whether any supervisors had seen her.
Shift Supervisor Grisham stated although during the last
3 years he has seen Polly Britt who is his wife 's niece in the
production area of the plant about three times , the last of
which occurred about 2 years ago, he has asked her on
each occasion to leave the plant or go into the lobby.
Shift Supervisor Tommy Morris acknowledged on one
occasion he had had his children in the plant to show them
where he worked. However, on that occasion they were
cleaning up and the machines were off.
Contrary to the General Counsel's contention that Jerry
Britt was informed his wife was not to come into the plant
because of his union activities, I find she was only prohib-
10 Shift Supervisor Grisham stated he had asked Carlisle to wait in the
lobby.
11 Plant Manager Stephan stated after seeing Mrs Britt in the plant he
informed Plant Superintendent Ferguson to talk to her husband about her
being there.
12 Shift Supervisor Grisham corroborated Plant Superintendent
Ferguson 's statement about the insurance requirements
279
ited from coming into the production area of the plant
because of the rule which the evidence established was en-
forced with respect to other nonemployees like Polly Britt
which kept them from the production areas of the plant,
and not because of any union activities on his behalf.
Joseph Payne, an alleged discriminatee, testified about
the first week in June 13 he talked to Plant Manager Ste-
phan about a cut in pay which he had taken as a result of
changing his job from a multiplex operator to an
inspector's job.14 During this conversation Payne stated
Stephan asked him how he stood on the union issue. Upon
replying he was for better job security, seniority rights, and
working conditions, Stephen told him if he was not telling
him the truth he would find it out later anyway.
Plant Manager Stephan denied he had ever had any con-
versations with Payne about the union and denied having
made such statements to him.
I credit the testimony of Plant Manager Stephan who, I
find, was a more credible witness than Payne. Apart from
my observations of the witnesses, Payne throughout his tes-
timony contradicted himself on numerous occasions which
exhibited more than mere confusion about such matters.
Estelle Waldo testified about the week of July 15 follow-
ing her return to work after a 2-day suspension she had a
conversation with Plant Manager Stephan who had partici-
pated in her suspension. According to Waldo, who was
wearing a union button at the time, Stephan told her he
knew she was mad at him but didn't think she was that
mad. She responded by telling him to look around and he
might see some more surprises.
Waldo did not recall whether she had worn a union but-
ton previously and did not know whether Stephan had
looked at her union button on that occasion.
Under cross-examination Waldo stated this was her first
conversation with Stephan after her return to work and
that he made it a practice of talking to those employees
returning from their suspensions. She acknowledged Ste-
phan did not say anything about the union button.
Plant Manager Stephan stated when Waldo returned to
work after her suspension he had a conversation with her
to find out whether she was angry with him for having
been laid off. Although Stephan could not recall what was
said on that occasion he denied he had ever discussed the
Union with her. Stephan stated he did not know whether
Waldo had a union button on although he was aware she
wore one except he did not know when she started wearing
it.
Waldo's own version of the conversation failed to estab-
lish that Plant Manager Stephan's comments denied by
him had reference to her union button rather than about
her feelings concerning her suspension. Accordingly, I do
not find Stephan threatened Waldo for wearing a union
button as alleged.
Roy Gray testified about 3 weeks before the first election
which was held on September 13, Plant Manager Stephan
made the comment to him during a conversation that it
looked like he was on the wrong side and glanced at the
union button which he was wearing. Gray's response was,
13 Under cross-examination Payne acknowledged the conversation may
have occurred in May.
14 The change in pay was not alleged to have been discriminatory.
280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
yes, he guessed so. Gray could not recall what else was
discussed but stated near the end of the conversation Ste-
phan told him he was just joking. According to Gray he
had been wearing a union button for I to 2 weeks prior to
their conversation and on that occasion he understood Ste-
phan to be kidding.
Plant Manager Stephan stated prior to the first election
he mentioned to Roy Gray it looked like he was on the
wrong side or words to that effect . However , Stephan stat-
ed as soon as he said it , he knew it wasn 't the best thing to
say so he indicated to Gray he was just joking . Stephan
also stated, which was undenied by Gray, that he told Gray
he was an individual, had individual rights, and, whatever
way he felt about any of the issues, he had a perfect right to
feel that way. Although Stephan acknowledged Gray wore
a union button he did not know when he started wearing it.
Under these circumstances, I do not find Stephan's re-
marks to Gray constituted an unlawful interrogation as al-
leged.
Ruth Garrett stated about late July while she and anoth-
er employee Rodney Russell and Shift Supervisor Morris
were talking, Morris asked Russell if he knew what URW
stood for. After Russell laughed and replied he didn't she
asked Morris what it stood for whereupon he replied "you
run wire ." Garrett stated after Russell left Morris asked her
if she knew what she was getting into . Upon replying she
thought she did, Morris asked her why she was getting into
it. After Garrett mentioned she didn't know how to com-
pute her checks , Morris informed her if the Union got in
they wouldn't be able to help because they had a big book
in the office which would take a long time for anybody to
understand and he doubted if anyone in the office could sit
down and teach them how to do that.
Shift Supervisor Morris testified although he had talked
to Garrett on a number of occasions about her checks, he
denied ever asking Garrett if she knew what she was get-
ting into or why and denied ever discussing the Union with
her.
I credit Garrett rather than Shift Supervisor Morris
whom I discredit and find that Morris interrogated Garrett
concerning her union activities . Besides my observations of
the witnesses and the evasiveness of Morris' testimony
such conduct is consistent with other unlawful conduct
herein found engaged in by Morris.
Edward Powell testified about August 28 after getting
dizzy while working, he and Shift Supervisor Morris went
out on the docks. Powell stated while there Morris began
talking about the Union and wanted his support for the
"vote no" committee. Morris told him if the Union came in
it would be hard on the employees and they wouldn't be
able to have breaks like they used to but would have to be
at their machines the full 8-hour shift, and they wouldn't
be allowed to enter his office to smoke like they used to.
Powell stated he informed Morris he was in support of the
"vote no" committee . Morris also told him the people who
voted for the Union didn't know what they were getting
into.
Shift Supervisor Morris denied ever discussing the
Union with Powell or making the statements attributed to
him by Powell. According to Morris the only conversation
he had with Powell on the dock occurred sometime in Sep-
tember when he took Powell out on the dock to get some
air after Powell had complained he was choking. Later that
same evening he found Powell asleep in the break area with
his machines broken and sent him home . Powell was subse-
quently written up for this and other instances and trans-
ferred to the second shift.15
I credit the testimony of Powell rather than Shift Super-
visor Morris who I previously discredited and find that
Morris threatened Powell that if the Union came in the
plant, the Respondent would be harder on its employees
and would restrict their breaks.
Mamon Morris stated about the week of September 15
he went into Shift Supervisor Morris' office where Morris
and employees Ricky Clowers and Larry Mooneyhan were
discussing scrap.
After Shift Supervisor Morris mentioned that during the
past month the Company had lost $25,000 in scrap he told
them if it continued they would all be without a job. He
also told them Phelps Dodge, which was their main source
of copper supply, was on strike and they had to switch to
South Wire mentioning that's what the Union was good for
such as causing shutdowns, layoffs, and just causing trou-
ble. Morris stated Shift Supervisor Morris also told them
he did not believe they would ever get a contract or any
more than they had out of the Company with the union
they had voted in. Morris stated during the conversation
although he could not recall how it came up Shift Supervi-
sor Morris told them it was a mighty stupid thing for them
to sign the handbill 16 and they should have enough sense
to know every plant in Pontotoc would have a copy of it
and they couldn't get a job anywhere in Pontotoc.
Under cross-examination Morris acknowledged there
was a lot of scrap at the time of the conversation and Mor-
ris' remark about they would all be looking for a job did
not refer to the Union. Morris also stated when Shift Su-
pervisor Morris made the statement he didn't believe they
would ever get a contract or any more than they already
had, the reason he gave was because the Jena plant had
voted in a union 8 or 9 months earlier and although they
had been in negotiations they had held out and not given a
contract or anything.
Ricky Clowers testified concerning a conversation be-
tween Shift Supervisor Morris, Larry Mooneyhan, and
himself which occurred about September 25. 17 According
to Clowers, Shift Supervisor Morris told him they were stu-
pid for signing the handbill since probably every plant in
Pontotoc could have one and see their names on it. Morris
told them it was possible they couldn't get a job because
they had signed the handbill and were pushing the Union
and everybody knew it. During the conversation, after
Morris had mentioned that last month the Company had
lost $25,000 in scrap, Clowers asked him if the plant would
close if the Union came in. Morris' response was the plant
did not have to have a union to close because if the scrap
15 Respondent's records reflect this sleeping incident occurred on Septem-
ber 24
16 the Union distributed a handbill which contained the signatures of
approximately 39 employees.
7 The record does not establish this was the same conversation about
which Mamon Morris testified
PONTOTOC WIRE PRODUCTS COMPANY 281
business did not get better it could close any time it wanted
to and it didn't have to be because of the Union. Morris
told them Jim Royce had been let down by the way the
vote went on the day shift and the people had let him down
and stated he didn't think Royce would give the people on
the day shift toilet paper without a strike. Clowers stated
Morris further told them it would be hard to get a contract
signed because they had a contract in Jena, Louisiana, and
all they had asked for was 3 weeks' vacation after 5 years
and did not get it . According to Clowers when Morris was
asked whether they would get a cost-of-living clause, Mor-
ris told them they wouldn't. Morris also told them if they
didn't get a contract within 12 months it was possible the
Union was automatically out.
Under cross-examination Clowers stated Morris' state-
ment about the handbill occurred after Mooneyhan had
asked Morris why the people who had signed a union
handbill were mad at the Union for passing it out when
they knew it was going to be passed out. Clowers further
stated Morris also told them it would be illegal for other
companies not to hire a person just because they had
signed the union handbill. Clowers acknowledged Morris
had also made the statement they couldn't tell what would
be in the contract.
Shift Supervisor Morris testified he had several different
conversations with employees concerning contracts and
negotiations in the event the Union came in the plant. Ac-
cording to him during these conversations he told the em-
ployees that if the Union was certified the Company would
have to negotiate a contract and nobody knew what they
would get. Morris told them the Company felt they were
paying fair wages and benefits. Morris stated the only
thing he ever said about the Union being out was that if
they did not reach a contract within 12 months he under-
stood the employees would have an opportunity to vote it
out. Morris did not think he had made any statement
about Jim Royce being so mad at the first shift he would
not give them toilet paper and did not recall mentioning a
cost-of-living clause or discussing whether the Company
would give 3 weeks' vacation after 5 years at Jena. Morris
did recall telling someone he understood the Union had
been voted in at Jena in November 1973 and in September
1974 had never reached a contract. Morris specifically de-
nied telling any employees the Union would not get a con-
tract from the Company nor get any more than they al-
ready had.
Shift Supervisor Morris recalled on one occasion when
he was talking to employees about a scrap problem at
which Maroon Morris may have been present he told them
they had lost $25,000 last month on scrap and could not
continue to lose like that or they were all going to be out of
a job. Morris stated on several occasions he had talked to
Maroon Morris about South Wire and Phelps Dodge and
had mentioned they had been running Phelps Dodge rods
for the last year which ran good but the last couple of
months Phelps Dodge had been on strike and they had
been running South Wire which was not as good. Morris
stated he could have told Maroon Morris • that Phelps
Dodge was still on strike and they didn't know when they
would get any more Phelps Dodge rods because the last
word he had heard they had never reached a contract.
Upon considering the above evidence I discredit Glow-
ers' testimony in its entirety. Apart from my observations
of the witnesses Clowers not only testified in an evasive
manner and professed an inability to recall matters reason-
ably within his own knowledge but admitted being un-
truthful about his sworn statements given to the Board
agent concerning those same matters about which he testi-
fied. His explanation for having made such untrue state-
ments was to obtain another election in the event the union
lost the first election.ts
With respect to the testimonies of Maroon Morris and
Shift Supervisor Morris I credit the testimony of Maroon
Morris whom I find to be a more credible witness than
Shift Supervisor Morris, whom I have previously discredit-
ed. Having credited Maroon Morris' testimony I find Shift
Supervisor Morris threatened employees Maroon Morris
and those other employees present that if the Union was
voted in it would not get a contract and the employees
would not get any more from the Company than they al-
ready had. Shift Supervisor Morris further threatened them
that they couldn't get a job anywhere in Pontotoc because
they had signed the union handbill.
On September 26 Board Attorney Jack McCarthy inter-
viewed Shift Supervisor Morris at the plant in connection
with the investigation of the unfair labor practice charges.
Maroon Morris testified on September 27 during a con-
versation in Shift Supervisor Morris' office with employees
Larry Mooneyhan and Ricky Clowers present, Shift Super-
visor Morris informed them he had spent about 2 hours
going over things with the man from the Labor Board and
from then on he did not want but one employee at a time
in his office. 19 Shift Supervisor Morris told them he felt the
things they had talked about there had been said among
friends and he did not think his friends should do him that
way and go to the Labor Board and file charges against
things he had said. He gave as an example the remarks he
had made about Phelps Dodge saying he did not mean that
the Union would close the plant down. Morris denied Shift
Supervisor Morris had mentioned anyone had been telling
lies on him.
Shift Supervisor Morris testified that night after having
met for about 2 hours with Board Attorney McCarthy sev-
eral employees, Ricky Clowers, Larry Mooneyhan, Rod-
ney Russell, and Maroon Morris, were in his office. Morris
stated he told them they were going to have to quit taking
their breaks in there and to start taking their cigarette
breaks in the break area. When one of the employees asked
him why he first said it was because they had too many
breaks in there. When Russell then asked if it could be
because of his meeting with the NLRB man he acknowl-
edged saying that it possibly could be. Morris stated after
mentioning that the questions the man had asked him usu-
ally referred to statements which had occurred in his office
he told them apparently someone was lying on him and he
19 Having completely discredited Clowers' testimony those other matters
about which he also testified will not be considered
19 According to Morris although since that conversation there has not
been much change insofar as taking breaks in Shift Supervisor Morris' of-
fice is concerned and he has observed more than one employee at a time in
there, if he himself saw someone else in the office he would go on by.
282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
did not know who or want to know who and didn't care for
them telling anyone what he said but when they started
lying he didn't like it. Morris then told them they were
going to take their breaks in the break area and if they
needed to come in there and see him to come one at a time.
Morris who stated he was a little hot at the time admitted
he discontinued cigarette breaks in his office for a couple
of nights although now the employees still come in there
and smoke.
Based upon the testimony of Maroon Morris which I
credit and Shift Supervisor Morris' admissions, I find that
Morris threatened Maroon Morris and those other employ-
ees present with the loss of break privileges in his office
because employees had given testimony to an agent of the
National Labor Relations Board 20
Fred McWhorter testified about October 3 Shift Super-
visor Morris showed him a list of work rules stating he was
going to have to start enforcing some of them a little strict-
er although most of them did not pertain to him and he
had never had any trouble following plant rules . Morris
made no mention of the union. Several of the rules which
were underlined pertained to taking breaks or eating in the
lobby rather than remaining there only long enough to get
something to eat and returning to their work areas; limiting
the number of employees to two or three in the smoking
area at a time; and prohibiting the AG operators and mul-
tiplex operators from taking breaks in the foreman 's office
or in front of his office which was reserved for the process
control employees and inspectors.21
Under cross-examination McWhorter acknowledged
these plant rules were common rules and had been in exis-
tence since at least last June without any change except he
had never seen them in writing before.
Shift Supervisor Morris acknowledged having shown
employees some written rules . Those pertaining to the AG
operators were also underlined. Morris stated the purpose
in showing them the rules was to get the scrap down and he
may have told them they were going to have to tighten
down to get the scrap down or they would all get in trouble
over it.
Plant Manager Stephan corroborated Morris' testimony
that the rules were related to the scrap problem and this
action was taken in October when the scrap had reached
an all-time high.22 Both Morris and Stephan denied this
action had anything to do with union activities.
Inasmuch as the announcement of the more stringent
enforcement of plant rules related to rules already in exis-
tence and occurred at a time when the undisputed evidence
20 The consolidated complaint did not allege such break periods were
actually terminated . Accordingly, no finding will be made . General
Counsel's motion , first raised in its brief , to amend the consolidated com-
plaint to allege that the discontinuance of the employee breaks in the office
violated Sec . 8(a)(1) and (4) of the Act is hereby denied . Apart from the
motion being untimely the charges herein did not allege a violation of Sec.
8(aX4). Moreover , the evidence established the break privileges were only
temporarily discontinued and have since been resumed.
2 According to McWhorter, since October 3 he has taken breaks in the
foreman 's office and has observed multiplex operators and AG operators
taking breaks there and has observed employees eating and drinking in the
lobby and more than two or three people in the smoking area.
22 The General Counsel's witness Marron Moms , as discussed , supra, also
admitted scrap was high in September
established a scrap problem existed I am not persuaded the
evidence is sufficient to prove such action was taken be-
cause of the employees' union activities, as the consolidat-
ed complaint alleged, rather than to eliminate the scrap
problem, as both Plant Manager Stephan and Shift Super-
visor Morris so testified.
C. The Alleged Discrimination Against Roger Davis and
Joseph Payne
The General Counsel contended Roger Davis was issued
an oral warning and Joseph Payne a reprimand for dis-
criminatory reasons.
Roger Davis, employed by the Respondent for approxi-
mately 6 years, worked as a rod mill operator on the first
shift under the supervision of Plant Superintendent Fergu-
son. His union activities consisted of wearing a union but-
ton and handbilling at the plant entrances prior to the first
election.
Ferguson testified about August 5 or 6 after his shift had
ended and the bell rang but before he had punched out
upon going to his locker he remembered he had left his
pliers in his work area. When he went back in the plant,
Plant Superintendent Ferguson stopped him and asked
him where he was going. Davis, who was wearing a union
button told Ferguson he was going back to get his pliers
whereupon he went to his work area, got his pliers and, as
he came back, Ferguson told him from then on when the 3
o'clock buzzer rang he wanted to see him out of there.
Davis then went to his locker, put his pliers up, punched
out, and left.
Davis stated on a prior occasion around the first of the
year or in 1973 he had gone back in the plant to borrow
something from Harold Watts. Unable to find it, upon ask-
ing Plant Superintendent Ferguson, Ferguson told him he
would still have to see Harold Watts. However, Davis
could not remember whether on that occasion Ferguson
had said anything about getting out when the buzzer rang.
Under cross-examination Davis acknowledged there was
a plant rule employees were not supposed to be bothering
other employees while they were working and, unlike the
prior occasion when he went back into the plant, he ac-
knowledged he had not told Plant Superintendent Fergu-
son or any of the supervisors on August 5 or 6 he was going
back into the plant or the reason. Davis admitted Ferguson
did not tell him he was getting a warning and had no
knowledge whether a warning had been put in his file.
Plant Superintendent Ferguson's version was after seeing
Davis coming back out of the lobby and then at his work
station, which is the same for the second shift, he asked
Davis what he was doing. When Davis told him he had left
his glasses or pliers and had gone back after them, Fergu-
son stated he told Davis it was okay but he would appreci-
ate it if he wouldn't hinder the operators whereupon Davis'
response was he wasn't hindering the operators. Ferguson
denied giving Davis any kind of a warning or reprimand
on that occasion, or that his discussion with Davis was
because of his union activities. According to Ferguson any
time he had observed employees in the plant after they had
clocked out he either asked them to leave or what they
were doing. Ferguson stated on August 9 he wrote up em-
PONTOTOC WIRE PRODUCTS COMPANY
ployee Carol Morris, who was the wife of Shift Supervisor
Tommy Morris , for remaining in the plant talking at the
work station of another employee after she had previously
been warned by him.23
Shift Supervisor Ferguson testified it was a rule employ-
ees were supposed to leave the production area whenever
they punched out and the rule which was enforced had
been in existence as long as the plant had been there.
Joseph Payne, except for a few months, was employed
by the Respondent from late 1969 to December 1974. The
last position he held was as a multiplex inspector on the
second shift under the supervision of Quality Control Su-
pervisor Horton.
His activities on behalf of the Union,24 which began
about May, consisted of contacting the union 's representa-
tives, soliciting employees to sign union authorization
cards, wearing a union button , and on several occasions
distributing union handbills at the plant entrances in addi-
tion to serving as a union observer in the Board election
held on September 13.
Payne testified on one occasion 25 when his shift ended
at 11 p.m. and after the buzzer had sounded, he stopped
and talked to another employee, Larry Mooneyhan who
was coming to work. This conversation .initiated by Payne
concerned a debt owed by Mooneyhan and lasted about 4
minutes 26 During the conversation which occurred in front
of the foreman's office , Payne observed Shift Supervisor
Morris , who was in the foreman 's office and was
Mooneyhan 's supervisor , looking at him.
Payne stated the following afternoon Quality Control
Supervisor Horton asked him whether he had stayed over
the previous night talking to Mooneyhan and asked what
they had been talking about. According to Payne when he
told Horton , Horton replied it was all right but said Plant
Manager Stephan wanted to see him in the office. After
they went into Plant Manager Stephan's office Payne stat-
ed he observed a written reprimand on the desk whereupon
Stephan told him Horton had informed him that he had
been hanging around the plant talking to Mooneyhan who
was supposed to be working . Upon explaining his conver-
sation with Mooneyhan , Stephan's response was he wasn't
supposed to be staying on the company premises after duty
hours . Payne stated he felt this was the first time the rule
had been enforced and mentioned another employee on
the second shift, Judy Stenson , had stayed from 10 to 20
minutes talking to her husband , Glenn Stenson, an em-
ployee on the third shift . Stephan 's response was he wasn't
aware of what had happened and had only taken over the
job recently. Payne then mentioned he wasn't breaking any
company policy because the black handbook in the
foreman's office stated employees were suppose to leave
the company's premises after duty hours when they
clocked out and he had not clocked out. Payne testified
23 Respondent 's record shows Carol Morris was written up on August 9
for staying over on the first shift after work.
24 Payne had previously engaged in union activities on behalf of the
Teamsters Union during 1973 and had served as a union observer in an
election.
25 Payne was uncertain whether this incident occurred about June 10, July
30, or August 14.
6 Payne 's timecard showed he punched out at 11 :08 p.m. on June 10.
283
although Stephan told him he was going to have to give
him a writeup, after telling Stephan he thought under the
company's rules he was suppose to get an oral warning
first, Stephan changed it to a verbal or oral warning telling
him the next time he did anything he would have to step on
him a little harder.
Under cross-examination Payne acknowledged his con-
versation with Mooneyhan had been broken up by Shift
Supervisor Morris, who told Mooneyhan it was time for
him to get to his machine. Contrary to Payne's testimony
on direct examination he admitted it was Quality Control
Supervisor Horton who had first given him the written
warning but after calling Horton at his home that evening
and complaining, they met with Plant Manager Stephan
the following day whereupon Stephan changed it from a
written warning to an oral or verbal warning.
Quality Control Supervisor Horton testified following a
report from a third shift supervisor 27 he gave Payne a writ-
ten reprimand for staying over on the next shift talking to
employees and hindering them from their jobs. However,
that evening when Payne contacted him at home complain-
ing he had been too hard on him and suggesting he change
it, he informed Payne he would present the matter the next
day to the plant manager. According to Horton the follow-
ing day upon meeting with Plant Manager Stephan and
informing him what Payne had said, Stephan agreed it was
too rough and changed it in Payne's presence to an oral
reprimand .21
Plant Manager Stephan's version was after Payne had
admitted he had stayed over after the shift ended to talk to
Mooneyhan and that the writeup was true upon asking
Payne whether he thought it was right to take the company
time, Payne informed him it wasn't but felt it was too stiff
a reprimand for a first offense. Stephan agreed and
changed it to an oral warning. Stephan testified the only
reason the reprimand was given was because Payne had
interfered with Mooneyhan and stated it was a plant rule
not to interfere with other workers when they were going
into the plant to work.
According to Payne the only other employee he had ob-
served remaining in the plant after shift change besides
Judy Stenson 29 occurred on August 14 and involved H. D.
Grisham and Donald Brown. Payne stated on that date as
he was leaving he observed Grisham walk up to Brown by
the foreman's office and appeared to be leaning up against
a forklift as he left. Payne who neither overheard their con-
versation or saw Grisham's timecard stated after being told
by another employee Rodney Russell that Grisham had
punched out at 11:05, he informed Horton of the matter
complaining that he had been written up. Horton left but
later returned and again asked what time Grisham had
punched out. Payne stated upon telling Horton that Rus-
sell had told him 11:05 p.m. Horton's response was Gris-
27 Shift Supervisor Morris stated he had reported to Payne's supervisor
that he should have Payne punch out and not hang around with the opera-
tors.
28 The written reprimand dated June I1 and referring to the incident
which had occurred on June 10 shows it was changed to an oral warning
instead
29 No dates were established when Judy Stenson had remained in the
plant and no evidence was offered to establish whether any supervisors had
observed her.
284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ham had punched out at 11:03 30 and told Payne he
thought he was just trying to start trouble and wasn't noth-
ing but a damn liar and as far as he was concerned the
matter was dropped.
Under cross-examination, however, Payne acknowl-
edged both Gnsham and Brown were shift inspectors and
admitted that shift inspectors were responsible for inform-
ing each other of problems which conversations normally
occurred at the shift change. Payne further stated he had
probably observed them talking about every night.
H. D. Grisham an inspector on the second shift could
not recall a particular conversation with Brown on August
14, but testified he frequently had conversations with
Brown, who was a third shift inspector, when the shift
changed , concerning those matters which should be passed
on. According to Grisham the company rule is that em-
ployees are supposed to leave when the buzzer sounds.
Shift Supervisor Morris corroborated his testimony that
shift inspectors are responsible for relaying any informa-
tion to each other about their work.
Plant Manager Stephan testified an oral warning and a
written warning had been given to Carol Morris and a writ-
ten warning to Charles Waldron for similar offenses.
Charles Waldron, who had never been active in the Union,
stated after having received an oral warning previously he
received a written warning on August 2 for punching out
late after his shift had ended. Respondent's records corrob-
orated his testimony.
D. Analysis and Conclusions
The General Counsel contended while the Respondent
denied that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3)
of the Act by unlawfully interrogating and threatening its
employees with respect to their union activities; threaten-
ing employees with the loss of break privileges because em-
ployees had given testimony on the Board; announcing
more stringent enforcement of plant rules ; and prohibiting
an employee 's wife from coming into the plant because of
union activities ; and discriminatorily issued a reprimand to
Joseph Payne and an oral warning to Roger Davis and
refused to rescind them because of their union or concerted
activities.
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act prohibits an employer from
interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in
the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act. Section 8(a)(3) of the Act provides in pertinent part:
"It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer .. .
by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employ-
ment or any term or condition of employment to encour-
age or discourage membership in any labor organization
Based upon my findings, supra, Quality Control Supervi-
sor Horton interrogated Roger Davis concerning what he
thought about the Union; Plant Manager Ferguson inter-
rogated Douglas Putte concerning what he thought about
the Union; Shift Supervisor Morris interrogated Ruth Gar-
rett concerning her union activities; Shift Supervisor Mor-
30 Gnsham's timecard shows he punched out at 11 .05 p.m. on August 14.
ris threatened Edward Powell that if the Union came in the
plant the Respondent would be harder on the employees
and would restrict their breaks; Shift Supervisor Morris
threatened Maroon Morris and other employees present
that if the Union was voted in, it would not get a contract
and the employees would not get any more from the Com-
pany than they already had and they could not get a job
anywhere in Pontotoc because they had signed the union
handbill; and Shift Supervisor Morris threatened Maroon
Morris and other employees present with the loss of break
privileges in his office because employees had given testi-
mony to an agent of the National Labor Relations Board.31
I hereby find such conduct interfered with, restrained,
and coerced those employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
With respect to the findings of unlawful interrogations
the Board has held that where selected employees are ques-
tioned about their union sympathies without any legitimate
reason therefor and given assurances against reprisals such
conduct by its very nature tends to inhibit employees in the
exercise of their right to organize and violates Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. Engineered Steel Products, Inc., 188
NLRB 298 (1971)..
The remaining issues are whether the Respondent dis-
criminatorily issued a reprimand to Joseph Payne and an
oral warning to Roger Davis and refused to rescind them
because of their union or concerted activities.
With respect to the alleged discrimination against Roger
Davis, based upon his own testimony as well as that of
Plant Superintendent Ferguson, the evidence failed to es-
tablish Davis was actually issued an oral warning on that
occasion. However, to the extent Plant Superintendent
Ferguson's statements to Davis about leaving the plant
when the buzzer rang might possibly be construed other-
wise, inasmuch as such conduct admittedly engaged in by
Davis was prohibited by plant rules which the evidence
established were enforced against other employees with no
showing of a disparity of treatment in their enforcement
directed against Davis, I find the evidence was not suffi-
cient to establish such statements were made because of
any union or protected concerted activities engaged in by
Davis notwithstanding Davis had been active in the union
and had previously been unlawfully interrogated by Qual-
ity Control Supervisor Horton.
Joseph Payne, a known union adherent, was issued a
reprimand following an incident where he had admittedly
remained after his shift change to talk to another employ-
ee, Mooneyhan, keeping him from his work. Contrary to
Payne's contention, the evidence established that plant
rules not only prohibited such conduct but were enforced
against other employees. The evidence involving a conver-
sation between Shift Inspectors H. D. Grisham and Don-
31 While Shift Supervisor Morris in announcing the discontinuance of
these breaks had also mentioned employees had gone to the Board and filed
charges against things he had said , protection under the Act also covers
employees involved in the investigative stages of the Board 's processes.
N.L R B v. Robert Scrivener, d/b/a A A Electric Company, 405 U.S. 117
(1972). The fact their charges or testimony may be false does not constitute
a valid defense for discriminating against them . See Richmond Home Tele-
phone Company, 70 NLRB 452, 455 (1947), The Kramer Company, et at, 29
NLRB 921, 935 (1941).
PONTOTOC WIRE PRODUCTS COMPANY
aid Brown , offered to show a disparity of treatment to-
wards Payne , was refuted by Payne 's own admission,
which was consistent with the company 's practices, that
shift supervisors were responsible for conferring with one
another at shift change about any problems . The only
other example given by Payne, involving Judy Stenson, not
only failed to establish when such alleged incidents oc-
curred but whether Respondent had observed such inci-
dents.
Having found that Payne had violated company rules by
interfering with Mooneyhan while Mooneyhan was sup-
posed to be working, which was the reason given to Payne
for the reprimand, and absent evidence of any disparity of
treatment directed against Payne in the enforcement of
such rules which the evidence established were enforced
against other employees , I find the evidence insufficient to
establish Payne was given such reprimand because of his
union or protected concerted activities.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above , found to constitute unfair labor practices occurring
in connection with the operations of the Respondent de-
scribed in section I , above , have a close , intimate , and sub-
stantial relationship to trade , traffic , and commerce among
the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes bur-
dening and obstructing commerce and the free flow there-
of.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Pontotoc Wire Products Company is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. United Rubber , Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers
of America , AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By coercively interrogating employees concerning
their union activities and what they thought about the
Union ; threatening an employee if the Union came into
the plant, Respondent would be harder on the employees
and would restrict their breaks ; threatening the employees
if the Union was voted in, it would not get a contract and
the employees would not get any more from the Company
than they already had , and could not get a job anywhere in
Pontotoc because they had signed the union handbill; and
by threatening employees with the loss of break privileges
in the office because employees had given testimony to an
agent of the National Labor Relations Board , Respondent
has interfered with , restrained , and coerced its employees
in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act, and has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. Respondent did not violate Section 8 (a)(3) and (1) of
the Act by discriminatorily issuing a reprimand to Joseph
Payne or an oral warning to Roger Davis and refusing to
rescind them , as alleged.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
285
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER32
Respondent, Pontotoc Wire Products Company, Ponto-
toc, Mississippi , its officers , agents , successors , and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employ-
ees by coercively interrogating employees concerning their
union activities and what they think about the Union;
threatening employees if the Union comes into the plant
Respondent would be harder on the employees and would
restrict their breaks; threatening employees if the Union is
voted in, it would not get a contract and the employees
would not get any more from the Company than they al-
ready have; threatening employees they can not get a job
anywhere in Pontotoc because they signed union hand-
bills; and threatening employees with the loss of break pe-
riods in the office because they give testimony to an agent
of the National Labor Relations Board.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their
rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist the Unit-
ed Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of Ameri-
ca, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing
or to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as
guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, or to refrain from any or such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its place of business located at Pontotoc,
Mississippi, copies of the notice attached hereto marked
"Appendix." 33 Copies of said notices, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 26, shall, after being
duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respon-
dent, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
32 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
33 In the event the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the 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 "
286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees are customarily posted . Respondent shall take rea- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
sonable steps to insure that said notices are not altered, have been taken to comply herewith.
defaced, or covered by any other material. IT is FURTHER ORDERED that the consolidated complaint be
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 26, in writ- and hereby is dismissed insofar as it alleged unfair labor
practices not specifically found herein.