Sparton Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 13, 1965

150 N.L.R.B. 948 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

948 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sparton Manufacturing Company and Chauffeurs and Helpers
Local Union No. 50, affiliated with International Brotherhood
of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of
America. Case No. 14-CA-3277. January 13, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 16, 1964, Trial Examiner Jerry B. Stone issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommending
that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative-action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He also
found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended that such
allegations be dismissed. Thereafter the Respondent filed its acquies-
cence in and specific exception to the Trial Examiner's Decision, and
a brief in support thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Fanning and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the "rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the en-
tire record in this case, including the Trial Examiner's Decision and
the Respondent's exception and brief, and hereby adopts the find-
ings,1 conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, the Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order
of the Trial Examiner and orders that the Respondent, Sparton
Manufacturing Company, Flora, Illinois, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order. The Board further orders that
the complaint be dismissed to the extent recommended by the Trial
Examiner.
1 In the absence of exceptions to the Trial Examiner ' s findings that the Respondent
did not violate Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by creating the impression of surveillance or
by threatening or unlawfully interrogating its employees as alleged in the complaint, we
adopt such findings pro forma.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed on January 27, 1964, by Chauffeurs and Helpers Local Union
No. 50 , affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
150 NLRB No. 92.
SPARTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY 949
housemen and Helpers of America (herein sometimes called Charging Party or
Union), the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional
Director for Region 14 (St. Louis, Missouri), issued a complaint dated March 19,
1964, against Sparton Manufacturing Company (herein sometimes called Respondent
or Employer) alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The Respondent's
answer admits many of the facts but denies the commission of unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to appropriate notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Jerry B.
Stone at Flora, Illinois, on May 14, 1964. All parties were represented at the hearing,
participated therein, and were afforded the right to present evidence, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, to offer oral argument, and to file briefs. Briefs were filed by
the General Counsel and Respondent and have been considered.
Upon the entire record in this case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following: 1
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER INVOLVED
The facts pertaining to the business of the Employer involved are based upon the
pleadings and admissions therein.
Sparton Manufacturing Company is, and has been at all times material herein, a
corporation authorized to do business in the State of Illinois and maintains its office
and principal place of business at Flora, Illinois, where it has been and is now engaged
in the manufacture of automotive and marine safety devices. In the course and con-
duct of its business operations, Respondent annually ships products valued in excess
of $50,000 from the State of Illinois to customers outside the State of Illinois. The
Respondent annually purchases, transfers, and delivers goods and materials valued in
excess of $50,000 to its Flora, Illinois, location directly from States of the United States
other than the State of Illinois. As conceded by the Respondent, it is found and con-
cluded that Respondent is now, and has been at all times material herein, an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The facts pertaining to the labor organization involved are based upon the pleadings
and admissions therein.
Chauffeurs and Helpers Local Union No. 50, affiliated with International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is now, and
has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction-the union campaign
According to the credited, uncontradicted testimony of Arnold Tatge, the Union
commenced its campaign to organize the employees of Sparton Manufacturing Com-
pany at Flora, Illinois, on November 18, 1963. During its campaign the Union did not
handbill Respondent's plant and did not call union meetings. Tatge credibily testified
to the campaign as is revealed by the following excerpt from his testimony-"making
house calls of employees who were employed at the Sparton Manufacturing Company.
We started the campaign on November 18 and were in the Flora vicinity each week at
least never less than 1 day and approximately 4 days per week until about January 24
or 25, 1964."
B. Threats of reprisals-alleged creation of an impression of surveillance
1. Respondent's weekly talks to its employees
The parties stipulated to the past practice of the Respondent with respect to weekly
employee meetings . The stipulation of the parties is revealed by the following excerpts
from the record in this case:
Mr. KAPLAN: Mr. Examiner, I would like to propose the following stipulations.
Stipulated that the employer by its representatives and agents, Mr. Etherington
and Mr. Conklin, held meetings for all of its 150 employees in the cafeteria of its
plant on January 8, 1964; January 10, 1964, January 20, 1964, and February 6,
1964. All employees who were present on those dates attended, at which the
organizational drive of the Teamsters Union at respondent's Flora, Illinois, plant
were discussed with its employees, was discussed with its employees. Geoffrey
'All credibility resolutions made with respect to the witnesses' testimony are based one
a composite evaluation of witness demeanor and logical consistency of the evidence
950 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Etherington is the general manager 'of the Flora operation of Sparton , and the
highest corporate official at the Flora plant . Robert Conklin is the plant super-
intendent of the Flora operation and is the second highest official at the Flora
plant.
May it be so stipulated?
Mr. DONOVAN : If the Trial Examiner please, one or two comments on this.
First, for just a purely technical reason , at the time these meetings were being
held we had 160 employees . We now have 150 . I realize that's a technical obser-
vation , but I am pointing that out . Secondly, I want to-be sure that if I should
stipulate to this that it is the understanding that the company has, week after
week, for a year or so prior to the union organizational drive, and since the union
organizational drive , has held weekly meetings with its employees at approxi-
mately 4:25 to 4: 35, at which time the employees have a right to attend or they
can leave if they want at 4:30 . There is no requirement for them to attend.
Other matters are discussed other than the union organizational drive, handing
out safety awards or things like that . It was not specifically called merely because
of the union organizational drive . If that is the understanding of the Board's
attorney , it is perfectly all right , but we don't want to say, at which was discussed
the union organizational drive, because other things were discussed , the years
before and the months since , and it was not just the union talk.
Mr. KAPLAN : General counsel will agree to the modification in the stipulation
inserting 160 employees in place of 150, and agrees and understands that the
meetings were held for employees both before and after the meetings discussed in
the stipulation for the purpose of discussing matters other than union organiza-
tional activities . We will so agree.
Mr. DONOVAN : Just be sure of one thing , that during these four meetings in
which you have set forth in the stipulation , matters other than the organizational
drive of the Teamsters were discussed.
Mr. KAPLAN : So agreed.
Mr. DONOVAN : We are satisfied with that very clear answer by Mr. Kaplan,
and we so stipulate.
TRIAL EXAMINER : The stipulation which includes the statements of both
counsel is accepted.
2. Geoffrey Etherington's speech of January 8, 1964
The facts pertaining to Respondent General Manager Etherington 's speech on
January 8 , 1964, are based on the credited testimony of Etherington and Conklin. I
was impressed with the unreliability of General Counsel 's witnesses Rogers, Blair,
Ausbrook , Vest, and Henderson as to an accurate recall of the speech and do not
credit their testimony to the effect that Etherington in his speech specifically informed
employees that the signing of union cards would mean dismissal or discharge or would
jeopardize their jobs. General Counsel witness Bullard testified concerning the speech
but did not allude to the words dismissal or discharge or jeopardizing of jobs. His
testimony otherwise , however , was sketchy and appeared unreliable as to what was
said . The direct and cross-examination testimony of Rogers , Blair, Ausbrook, Vest,
and Henderson and their prior sworn statements completely impressed me with the
unreliability as to accuracy of recall of said witnesses. Respondent 's witnesses Con-
well, Smith, Morris, Moore, Engelmeier , Brown , and Stanford revealed such a limited
recall of the speech that their testimony also reveals an unreliability as to accuracy
and cannot be given weight . My impression of the witnesses whose testimony I have
described as unreliable was so strong that I deem it unnecessary to detail the specifics
of comparisons of their testimony on direct and cross -examination and their prior
statements . I note, however , that I was impressed with biasness of General Counsel
witness Rogers and the biasness of Respondent 's witness Conwell . I am convinced that
Etherington and Conklin truthfully testified to the effect that the speech was a written
prepared speech read without deviation of substance and that Respondent 's Exhibit
No. 1 was the speech which was read . I do not credit Etherington 's testimony to the
effect that he did not endeavor to give the impression that the signing of union cards
meant dismissal or discharge or would jeopardize the jobs of those who signed.
Although I believe his testimony to the effect that he read the prepared speech and
did not deviate in substance therefrom , Etherington appeared pleased with himself as
he concluded his testimony . The written speech in total context does contain language
which is reasonably construed to convey that the signing of union cards would mean
dismissal or discharge or jeopardizing of jobs.
Accordingly , I hereby conclude and find that Etherington made the following speech
to the employees at 4:35 p .m. on January 8, 1964 , in the cafeteria at the plant.
Etherington's speech is herein set out.
SPARTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY 951
Will Bernice Denton step forward please. I am going to award the first
honorable mention award in this current suggestion contest to Bernice , for her
suggestion that we get a loud speaker for our meetings. Bob Conklin will present
the other awards in a few minutes, or later this week if I do not finish in time.
Bernice's suggestion was doubly good, firstly because my cold keeps me from
talking very loud, and secondly because I have a very important and' serious sub-
ject that I hope is clearly understood. Part of this message I will read because it
is the official company policy.
At the last meeting, Bob Conklin told us about the union problems which
delayed construction of the new water tower. He also told us of the new
customers and business we have because we can guarantee no such delivery delays.
Yesterday, two professional union organizers came to Flora aiming for
Sparton. We know where they are from, and that they are teamsters. This is
the same teamsters union you read about in the pa er, the one headed by Jimmy
Hoffa. I understand that like Jimmy when you first meet them, they are very
smooth, and dress very well.
Some of you will be contacted by these teamsters organizers. You don't have
to talk to them, but you do:
1. They may say that the card they ask you to sign only asks for a vote so that
employees can have a choice. The fact is the union can organize a company
without an election by getting enough of their cards signed. They will use every
possible means to get enough cards signed so that you may not have the right to
vote. Don't sign the card just to get rid of the organizer. It will be very difficult
to get your card back after a change of heart. You will hear the card is lost or
some such excuse.
2. They may ask you to sign a union card saying that it is only for a union
representative or a representative of the N.L.R.B. This is not necessarily the
truth, in some instances the signed card is used by the union in an attempt to
prove to' the company that the union really has a majority.
The union may get these cards from you then show them to the company in
order to force recognition without an election. Be careful about what you sign-
don't sign anything unless you know what you are signing and what it might mean
to you, your family, or your fellow employees.
3. The union organizers may say "everyone is signing ." If this were so, they
wouldn't need the card. Don't take anyone's word [for] something this important.
4. We have received reports from some of our employees that they were being
harassed by the union to sign up. Please report any incident in which you have
been threatened, harassed, or intimidated by the union to your supervisor, Bob
Conklin, Newt Wheeler, or myself. Also report to us if you have reason to
believe the union has forged your name on a card. Remember-you do not
have to and should not sign a card under any circumstances, unless you want the
union to be your agent.
The Sparton'horn division has had dealings with unions before. There was a
union in the old Jackson, Michigan, horn plant. There have been five separate
attempts to organize this plant, but each time the Union has been turned down.
We are convinced that a union is not needed in this plant because:
1. The union didn't get you your job and can't guarantee it.
Only a profitable company with loyal customers can do that. No employee of
ours has lost wages because of a strike-with no union, there can be no strike.
2. The union doesn't pay your wages and can't give you an increase. The
union can promise you anything, but remember, the company must agree first,
because the company pays all wages. In the past three years we have had four
increases. There is a company right in Flora that is now represented by the
Teamsters, that has had no general increase in nearly three years. This is what
happened-I don't know what the union promised. All the union can guarantee
is dues, assessments and fines.
3. We have the finest and only air conditioned plant in the area. We have
worked together peacefully without outside interference or strike in the past three
and one-half years to build a business with one employee up to our present two
shift operation.
I firmly believe that the present spirit of cooperation is the best for continual
growth and job opportunity. I hope you will all help me in maintaining this spirit.
The Respondent in defense to the General Counsel's allegation that Etherington on
January 8, 1964, had warned employees that signing a union authorization card would
cause their dismissal contends that the foregoing speech was made. Thus the issue of
whether the speech as made contains such threats is presented.2
2 Texas Industries , Ino., et al., 139 NLRB 365, 368, footnote 4.
952 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. Threat of reprisal
' Etherington's written prepared speech as read reveals in the first numbered
paragraph 1 that the employees should know that the signing of union cards could
mean the selection of an exclusive bargaining representative without the right of a
vote and that the employees should be wary of statements that the union card only
asked for a vote so that employees could have a choice. Under such circumstances,
the Respondent's statement in the first paragraph numbered 2 -was calculated to
convey to the employees that the signing of union cards would not necessarily be
only for the NLRB or a union representative, that the employer might learn of
their having signed such cards, and that reprisals would occur. Other statements in
the speech concerning the employees' jobs and job opportunity convey that the repris-
als would relate to the employees' jobs. I, therefore, conclude and find that Ethering-
ton's speech on January 8, 1964, constituted a threat to the employees that the signing
of union authorization cards would cause their discharge. Such a threat constitutes
conduct violative of Section 8 (a)( I) of the Act. I so conclude and find.3
4. Conklin's January 10 and 20, 1964, speeches at the
company weekly meeting with employees
The facts relating to Conklin's talks to the employees on January 10 and 20,
1964, are based on a composite of the credited testimony of Rogers, Blair, Aus-
brook, Vest, and Henderson. I find that the first talk (January 10, 1964) related
to Conklin's discussion of his dealing with a Union in Michigan and the second
talk (January 20, 1964) related to a discussion of a union authorization card
count (method of proving the Union's status as representative of majority of
employees) in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Rogers and Blair impressed me as
being sure that the talks were in this order. Ausbrook placed the Albuquerque,
New Mexico, talk as being on January 20, 1964. Vest and Henderson's testimony
to the effect that the Albuquerque, New Mexico, talk occurred on January 10,
1964, appears to be a confusion of the time and talks. Considering' the foregoing
and the confusion of the witnesses, I am convinced and find that no reference was
made on January 10, 1964, by Conklin to the fact that the-union organizers were
back in town or of knowing how they dressed, etc. -I am convinced from the
evidence that the only reference to union organizers was made by Conklin on
January 20, 1964, when he stated in effect that he understood the union organizers
were both in town.
Rogers in her testimony with respect to Etherington's January 8, 1964, speech
,relating to the Company's knowledge of how the union organizers were dressed,
testified that she might be stating something that Conklin stated in his talks. Her
testimony as to Conklin's talks did not touch upon the manner of the -union orga-
nizer's dress. Ausbrook's testimony as to Conklin's January 10, 1964, talk was
confused as to whether Etherington or Conklin spoke of knowing who the orga-
nizers were. I am convinced that the witnesses' statements to the effect that Conklin
made such statements is a confusion of Etherington's January 8, 1964, speech with
Conklin's talks. Similarly I am convinced that Henderson confused Etherington's
January 8, 1964, speech with Conklin's talks. The facts of the events relating to
Conklin's talks are set out in the following paragraphs.
On January 10, 1964, around 4:25 p.m. Respondent Plant Superintendent Conklin
spoke to the assembled employees for approximately 5 minutes. Conklin gave
out the suggestions awards which the Employer had been unable to give out on
January 8, 1964. Conklin also spoke about production problems. During the
talk Conklin told the employees of his dealings with the union in-. Jackson,
Michigan.
On January 20, 1964, Conklin again spoke to the assembled employees. In
this talk Conklin told the employees about an incident in Albuquerque, New
Mexico, at one of the Employer's plants. The Union had brought a group of
3 Contrary to Respondent's contention that the speech by Etherington was privileged
statements within the meaning of Section 8(c) of the Act, I am convinced that the state-
ment conveyed the threat as set forth herein Texas Industries, Inc., et al., 139 NLRB
365 Cf Armstrong Two & Rubber Company, Test Fleet Branch, 119 NLRB 382, 309,
398. The factual context of the speech in the instant case is distinguishable from the
letter in the Armstrong case. In the Armstrong case the total context of the letter did
not convey a threat of reprisal if the company learned of the signing of union cards.
SPARTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY 953
union authorization cards in, which when examined revealed that ` only the top
five of the cards had been signed . - During this talk Conklin told the employees
that he understood that the union organizers were back in town.4
5. The alleged creating of an impression of surveillance
The General , Counsel contends that on and after January 8 , 1964 , Etherington
and Conklin , for the Respondent , made numerous statements designed to create
the impression that Respondent was engaging in surveillance of its employees' union
activities.
The evidence touching upon this issue consists of the statement by Etherington
on January 8, 1964 , about the union organizers and of speeches by Conklin on
January 10 and 20, 1964.
Thus Respondent General Manager Etherington , on January 8, 1964, said,
"Yesterday , two professional union organizers came to Flora aiming for Sparton.
We know where they are from , and that they are Teamsters. This is the same
teamsters union you read about in the paper , the one headed by Jimmy Hoffa. I
understand that like Jimmy when you first meet them , they are very smooth,
and dress very well."
• Considering Respondent General Manager Etherington 's foregoing statement in
the total context of his speech and all the evidence , including Respondent Plant
Superintendent Conklin's statement on January 20, 1964 , that he understood that
the union organizers were back in town , I am not persuaded "and do not conclude and
find that the Respondent made statements to the employees designed to create the im-
pression that it was engaged in surveillance of the employees ' union activities.5
C. Respondent 's alleged agents-John , Bones and Roger Wells
The facts relating to the issues pertaining to Bones and Wells are based on a
composite of the credited testimony of Etherington , Ausbrook , and Vest.
The General Counsel contends that John Bones, member of Clay County Board
of Supervisors , and Roger Wells, First National Bank president , acted as agents
of the Respondent and engaged on January 15, 1964 , in illegal interrogation of
employees as to their union activities and made threats of reprisals to the employ-
ees concerning their engaging in union activities.
Respondent's plant started production in June 1961 . Prior to the building of
the plant the Respondent had had many meetings with civic leaders responsible
for securing Respondent 's location in Flora. After production started , Respond-
ent had meetings on December 20, 1961 , and on December 20, 1962 , to make
in essence annual reports on the operation to such civic leaders. Because of the
press of business in December 1963 this annual meeting was delayed until
January 1964.
As it had in the past , Respondent again hosted (paid the dinner bill) a meeting
on January 8, 1964 , in which it made an annual report of its operations to the civic
leaders responsible for its location in Flora, Illinois.6 Attending this meeting were
civic leaders from the Flora (Illinois ) and the Clay County area . There were
around 15 , such civic leaders present. Including among those present were Wells
and Bones?- At this meeting Etherington told the assembled group of the current
union organizational drive and that he did not believe it was a serious threat.8 Some-
one at the meeting asked if they ( the civic leaders ) should go out and contact,the
employees . Etherington told the civic group that they should not do so as it would
jeopardize the Respondent 's position.
4 The parties stipulated that the Company had regular employee meetings on January 10 $
and 20, 1964 , and on February 6, 1964, wherein the union campaign was discussed. There
was no testimony as to what Etherington or Conklin said at the February 6, 1964, com
liany meeting with the employees. E
s The cases cited by the General Counsel in support of his position-Hendrix Manufactur-
ing Company, Inc., 139 NLRB 397, and Georgia-Pacific Corporation, 132 NLRB 612 , unlike
the present case, factually support an inference or create an impression of surveillance.
6 This meeting was scheduled shortly after Respondent learned of the union organiza-
tional effort.
. 7 Etherington 's testimony was to the effect that Wells was present and that he believed
Bones was there.
5Although the General Counsel alludes to'the fact that Etherington stated that it was
a serious attempt I do not find that Etheringon so stated Etherington's testimony as
to a serious attempt reveals his evaluation of the union drive and not what he stated.
954 DECISIONS OF. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Subsequent to the January 8 , 1964 , civic meeting (set forth above ), Etherington
learned that some of the civic leaders had contacted a few employees about the,
union organizational drive . In this connection Etherington learned that Roger
Wells, First National Bank president , had talked to an employee or two when they
came to the bank, and inquired about the union attempt at the plant . Etherington
did not learn the details of Wells' conversations . Etherington did not learn that
Bones or Wells had visited employees at their homes . The Respondent at no time
posted notices or orally advised employees that it disavowed the actions of Bones,
Wells, or other civic leaders.
Shirley Ausbrook credibly testified to the effect that she received a telephone call
in mid -January 1964 from a caller who identified himself as John Bones . Ausbrook's
testimony on cross-examination clearly reveals that her identification of the caller as
Mr. Bones was only because the caller stated that he was Mr. Bones. Ausbrook's
testimony on redirect examination reveals that prior to the telephone conversation
with the caller (who identified himself as John Bones ) she had had face-to-face con-
versation with Bones , and that she had had more than one such conversation.
Nowhere in Ausbrook 's testimony do I find that she has identified the voice of the
caller as the voice of Bones. Her testimony that the caller identified himself as
Bones, without identification of the voice , is not sufficient evidence to establish that
the caller was John Bones . It is clear therefore that the General Counsel has failed.
to establish the alleged violations of the Act by the alleged conduct of Bones .9
Rosalie Vest credibly testified to a visit to her home by Roger Wells , president of
the First National Bank , in mid-January 1964 . The ensuing conversation is revealed
by the following excerpts from her testimony:
A. He came in and introduced himself and said he was on the industrial
committee and he said he did not know if a signed a card or not and I said,
"Well, could Sparton leave if we got a union in Sparton ," and he said, "Yes,
Sparton could leave and would leave , and any town would be glad to have them."
And I asked him if they owned the building that Sparton-
Q. [Interrupting .] If who owned the building?
A. I asked him if Sparton owned the building that they was in now, that I
had heard that they did not and he said that they owned the new addition and
they was building a water tower and paying for it , and he said if I was ever
in need to talk to him , for me not to hesitate to call him or anyone on the
industrial committee , there was 20 on the committee , and I did not know what
he meant by in need to talk to him , so I asked him what he meant by in need
to him and he said about the union or anything on that order.
Vest testified that Allen agreed with Wells' statement about Sparton 's leaving
Flora, Illinois. Vest also testified that she did not report Wells ' conversation to the
Respondent . Etherington credibly testified to the effect that Sparton owned the
lands and building of the Company but that full value had not been paid for the
land, that the land had been practically donated by the community.
Considering all the foregoing , the evidence does not reveal that the Respondent
constituted the civic leaders, Wells or Bones , as its agents . Nor does the evidence
reveal circumstances wherein the Respondent knew of conduct initiated or ratified
by itself which necessitated a disavowal thereof. I conclude and find that the Gen-
eral Counsel has failed to establish that Bones or Wells were agents of the Respond-
ent.and accordingly shall recommend dismissal of the complaint allegations of alleged
conduct of Bones and Wells 10
N. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
Those activities of Respondent which have been found to be unlawful , as set forth
'in-'section III, above , occurring in connection with its operations set forth in section
I;,,above , have a close , intimate , and substantial relation 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 of commerce.
9 As hereinafter indicated I also find that the General Counsel has failed to establish
Bones as an agent of the Respondent otherwise . I credit Ausbrook 's testimony as to
what she and the alleged Bones said to each other during the mid -January 1964 telephone
conversation but find it unnecessary to set forth such fact finding herein in view of the
finding herein that Bones is not revealed as an agent of the Respondent . Ausbrook did
not report the telephone conversation to the Respondent.
10 Ottenheimer and Company, Inc., 144 NLRB 38.
SPARTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY
V. THE REMEDY
955
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
it will be recommended that it cease and•desist therefrom and that it take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Chauffeurs and Helpers Local Union No. 50, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffieurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Sparton Manufacturing Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning.
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. By threatening,its employees with reprisals if they signed union authorization
cards, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in,
the exercise of their rights guaranteed in 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 affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The evidence does not establish violations of the Act as alleged in General
Counsel's complaint paragraph V, subsections B, C, D, E, and F.
RECOMMENDED ORDER 11
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and `conclusions of law, and
upon the entire record in this case, it is recommended that the Respondent, Sparton
Manufacturing Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from threatening employees with reprisals because they sign
union authorization cards or in any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing any of our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist Chauffeurs and Helpers Local Union No.
50, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activ-
ities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condi-
tion of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the
Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Post at its plant in Flora, Illinois, copies of the attached notice marked
`.`Appendix." 12 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 14, shall, after being signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con-
secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
11 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the word
"Order" shall be deemed substituted for the words "Recommended Order". Additionally
there shall be deemed substituted for the first paragraph of the Recommended Order the
following paragraph:
Upon the entire record in these cases, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby
orders that:
12In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by
a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order." '
956 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of this Recommended Order , what steps the Respondent has taken to
comply herewith.13
It is also recommended that complaint paragraph V, subsections B, C, D, E, and
F, be dismissed.
13 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing , within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with reprisals because they sign union author-
ization cards nor will we in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form
labor organizations , to join or assist Chauffeurs and Helpers Local Union No. 50,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, or any other labor organization , to bargain col-
lectively through representatives 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 , except to the extent that
such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment , as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of
the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act
of 1959.
SPARTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 1520
Market Street , 4459 Federal Building , St. Louis, Missouri , Telephone No. Main
1-8100, Extension 4142 , if they have any questions concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions.
Hobart Brothers Company and International Union , United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 8-CA-3389. January 13, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 1, 1964, Trial Examiner Jerry B. Stone issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommending
that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He also
found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended that such
allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent filed its ac-
quiescence in and specific exception to the Trial Examiner's Decision,
and a brief in support thereof.
150 NLRB No. 93.