Spotlight Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 4, 1971

188 N.L.R.B. 819 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

SPOTLIGHT COMPANY, INC.
Spotlight Company , Inc., and International Ladies'
Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO. Cases 26-
CA-3622 and 26-RC-3693
March 4, 1971
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , AND JENKINS
On August 27, 1970, Trial Examiner William J.
Brown issued his Decision and Report on Objections
to Election in the above-entitled proceeding, finding
that the Respondent 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
and Report on Objections to Election. The Trial Ex-
aminer also found that the Respondent had not en-
gaged in certain unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint. In addition, the Trial Examiner found that
Respondent had engaged in objectionable conduct
with respect to the election held in Case 26-RC-3693,
and recommended that the election be set aside.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and Report on Objections
to Election and a brief in support thereof, and the
General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a support-
ing brief. The Respondent subsequently filed an an-
swering brief to the General Counsel's cross-excep-
tions.
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 powers
in connection with this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no preju-
dicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision and Report on Objections to
Election, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire
record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Ex-
aminer, as modified below.
We agree with the Trial Examiner's findings that
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
unlawful interrogation, threats that employees would
lose their right to present grievances directly to the
Respondent if they selected the Union as their bar-
gaining representative, threats that defeat of the Un-
ion was necessary to the correction of employee
grievances, and threats of discharge for engaging in
activity protected by the Act. In addition, the Trial
Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent
further violated Section 8(a)(1) by threatening plant
819
closure if the Union were chosen as the employees'
bargaining representative.' We further agree that such
acts of unlawful interrogation and threats constitute
both unfair labor practices within the scope of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act and conduct amounting to interfer-
ence with the results of the election. Therefore, in
order to effectuate the policies of the Act, we shall set
aside the election in Case 26-RC-3693 and direct that
a second election be conducted.
The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent
did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by granting
a piece-rate increase to an employee shortly before the
election. We do not agree and find merit in the Gener-
al Counsel's exception. The record shows that Floor-
girl Wanda Madden asked one of the employees
under her supervision, Mildred Scarborough, what
she thought the Union could do for the employees.
Scarborough, a known union adherent, replied that
through collective bargaining the Union could correct
what Scarborough thought were unfair piece rates.
The Trial Examiner found that later that same day
the Respondent, at Madden's suggestion, timed
Scarborough's job for the first time in 18 months and
shortly before she went home Scarborough was told
by Madden that she was entitled to a 5-cent pay in-
crease. The Trial Examiner viewed this adjustment as
unrelated to Scarborough's advocacy of the Union as
evidenced primarily by the fact that it was not given
any publicity. Contrary to the Trial Examiner, we find
that the record clearly supports the conclusion we
reach that the Respondent's actions were directed at
an effort to dissuade Scarborough from supporting
the Union and therefore was violative of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. To begin with, the conversation
between Madden and Scarborough was not a mere
casual encounter. Specifically, Scarborough empha-
sized that her interest in the Union was bottomed on
her concern over unfair piece rates, and contended
that with union representation the employees would
be treated more fairly. Madden, on the other hand,
insisted that the Union would not remove this, or any
other, area of employee dissatisfaction because "they
can't make ... the Company give them a contract."
Scarborough again stated that the advent of the Un-
ion would promote fair treatment and again com-
plained about the Respondent's policy on piece rates.
The subsequent adjustment of the piece rate was, in
our opinion, clearly related to Scarborough's interest
in union representation and was intended as a mani-
festation of the Respondent's ability to remedy an
unfair practice, about which she and other employees
were complaining, without the intervention of the Un-
ion. In the above circumstances, and considering the
' The Trial Examiner although making this finding, inadvertently failed to
include it in his Recommended Order and Notice We correct this oversight.
188 NLRB No. 128
820 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
element of timing, the absence of any legitimate bus-
iness purpose, and the presence of other acts of inter-
ference, we find that the pay increase was violative of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.2
Finally, we find merit in the General Counsel's ex-
ception to the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
We agree that under the circumstances in this case,
and considering the commission of numerous other
acts of unlawful interference and discrimination by
Respondent heretofore found by the Board in Spot-
light Company, Inc., 181 NLRB No. 94, a broad cease-
and-desist order should be provided.
to the election should have access to a list of voters and their addresses which
may be used to communicate with them Excelsior Underwear Inc, 156
NLRB 1236, N L R B v Wyman-Gordon Co, 394 U S 759 Accordingly, it
is hereby directed that an election eligibility list, containing the names and
addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the
Regional Director for Region 26 within 7 days after the date of issuance of
the Notice of Second Election by the Regional Director The Regional Direc-
tor shall make the list available to all parties to the election No extension
of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in
extraordinary circumstances Failure to comply with this requirement shall
be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed
APPENDIX
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the Recommended
Order of the Trial Examiner as modified below and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Spotlight Compa-
ny, Inc., Ashdown, Arkansas, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in
the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order as herein
modified.
1. Add the following paragraphs after paragraph
1(b) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order:
"(c) Threatening employees with plant closure as a
consequence of selecting the Union as their bargain-
ing representative."
"(d) Granting wage rate increases to employees in
order to influence their desires or decisions with re-
spect to International Ladies' Garment Workers' Un-
ion, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
However, nothing herein shall be construed to require
the Respondent to rescind or discontinue the wage
rate previously granted."
2. Substitute for the present paragraph 1(c) the fol-
lowing:
"(e) In any other manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
their rights under the Act."
3. In footnote 6 of the Trial Examiner's Decision,
substitute "20" for "10" days.
4. Substitute the attached Appendix for the Trial
Examiner's Appendix.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election
conducted on March 26, 1970, in Case 26-RC-3693,
be, and it hereby is, set aside.
[Direction of Second Election 3 omitted from pub-
lication.]
2 In view of the disposition we have taken in this case we need not consider
and we do not pass upon the Trial Examiner's finding that the acts of
"outside agents," Darol Bell and Herbert McCanless, did not constitute acts
violative of Section 8(a)(1) of conduct interfering with the results of the
election
3 In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to be
informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all parties
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
We hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT coercively question employees
concerning their membership or activity on be-
half of International Ladies' Garment Workers'
Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with dis-
charge for union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with state-
ments that employee grievances could be correct-
ed only if the Union were defeated or with
statements that selection of the Union as repre-
sentative would mean the loss of the right to pre-
sent individual grievances directly to the Compa-
ny.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with plant
closure as a consequence of selecting the Union
as their bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT grant wage rate increases to our
employees in order to influence their desires or
decisions with respect to International Ladies'
Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization. However, WE WILL NOT
rescind or discontinue the new wage rate we pre-
viously granted.
WE WILL NOT by such questions or threats or in
any like or related manner interfere with employ-
ees in the exercise of rights under the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended.
SPOTLIGHT COMPANY, INC
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
SPOTLIGHT COMPANY, INC.
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, 746 Federal Office Building, 167
North Main Street, Memphis, Tennessee 38103,
Telephone 901-534-3161.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION AND REPORT
ON OBJECTIONS TO ELECTION
WILLIAM BROWN , Trial Examiner: This consolidated pro-
ceeding under Section 9 and 10 of the National Labor pro-
Act, as amended, hereinafter referred to as the Act,
came on to be heard at Ashdown , Arkansas, on June 16 and
17, 1970, before me. The petition in Case 26-RC-3693 had
been filed by the above-indicated Charging Party-Petition-
er, hereinafter sometimes referred to as the Union , on Feb-
ruary 2, 1970,1 and the election therein conducted on March
26 pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued
on March 6 by the Acting Regional Director for Region 26.
The ori ginal charge of unfair labor practices in Case 26-
CA-3622 was filed March 19 by the Union and the com-
plaint herein issued on May 7 ; it alleged and the duly-filed
answer of the Company denied the commission of unfair
labor practices defined in Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. By an
order of May 7 the complaint and representation cases were
consolidated for hearing.2
At the hearing the parties appeared and participated as
noted above with full opportunity to present evidence and
argument on the issues. Subsequent to the close of the hear-
ing, all parties filed written briefs which have been fully
considered. On the entire record herein and on the basis of
my observation of the witnesses I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The pleadings and evidence indicate, and I find, that the
Company is a corporation doing business within the State
of Arkansas and operating at Ashdown, Arkansas, a plant
and place of business where it is engaged in the manufacture
of lingerie. During the 12-month penod preceding issuance
of the complaint herein, the Company purchased and re-
ceived at its Ashdown operation goods and materials valued
in excess of $50,000 and shipped directly from points out-
side the State of Arkansas; during the same penod the Com-
pany sold and shipped directly from its Ashdown plant to
points outside the State of Arkansas goods valued in excess
of $50,000. I find, as the Company concedes, that it is an
employer engaged in commerce within the purview of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
i Dates hereinafter , unless otherwise indicated , relate to the calendar year
1970.
2 The Company motion that union objections to the election which overlap
items included in the charge and complaint be deemed permanently waived
appears to have been disposed of by the Board's Order of May 20. General
Counsel's motion to correct the transcript is unopposed and hereby granted
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
821
I find, in accordance with the pleadings and evidence,
that the Union is a labor organization within the purview of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND THE OBJECTIONS
TO CONDUCT AFFECTING THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTION
This case concerns events occurring in the course of the
Union's continuing efforts to organize the Company's pro-
duction and maintenance employees at its Ashdown opera-
tion. The campaign commenced on or about April 24, 1969,
and has resulted in an earlier Board finding of-unfair labor
practices on the part of the Company (181 NLRB No. 194).
It has also generated a second Board proceeding in which
a Trial Examiner's Decision issued June 24. The instant case
concerns, in addition to union objection to conduct affect-
ing the results of the March 26 election, allegations that
Company President Jules Seiff, an admitted supervisor, en-
gaged in certain unfair labor practices in the nature of
threats and promises in the course of speeches preceding the
March 26 election; it is also alleged that Floorgi'rls Coving-
ton, Fields, and Madden are supervisors and engaged in
certain unfair labor practices in the nature of threats, prom-
ises, interrogation, and grant of benefits-all for the ppur-
pose of affecting employee attitudes toward the Union. The
complaint also alleges that two Ashdown businessmen,
Doral Bell and Herb McCanless, acting as agents of the
Company, threatened employees with closing of the plant if
the Union were selected as bargaining representative of the
employees. The Company denies the commission of the
unfair labor practices alleged and further denies the supervi-
sory and agency status of the floorgirls and the business-
men.
A. The Seiff Speeches
It is clear that Company President Seiff delivered
speeches to employees on March 24 and 25. The texts of the
speeches are in evidence as General Counsel's Exhibits 5
and 6 and the evidence indicates that the speeches were read
from the texts in evidence. With respect to the March 24
speech, the General Counsel's contention is that the state-
ment therein to the effect that if the Union got in employees
would not be able to talk to management except through the
union favorites and that management would not be able to
talk to employees except through the Union, constituted an
unfair labor practice within the rule established in N.L.R.B.
v. Graber Manufacturing Co., 382 F.2d 990 (C.A. 7), and The
Trane Co., 1377 NLRB 1506, and thereby engaged in the
unfair labor practices alleged in Section 8(a) of the com-
plaint. I see nothing to support the General Counsel's posi-
tion in the Board's decision in Trane case; the decision in
Graber, however, indicates clearly that the company state-
ment, in Seiff's speech, that employees would, by selecting
union representation, forfeit their right to individual pres-
entation of grievances as provided in Section 9(a) of the Act,
constitutes both an unfair labor practice within the scope of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and conduct amounting to inter-
ference with the results of the election within the ambit of
union Objection 1.
The March 25 speech is also alleged to constitute both an
unfair labor practice and conduct interfering with the re-
sults of the election by virtue of the statement therein that
after the election the Company, if the Union were defeated,
would have the right to talk freely to employees and to make
changes when changes are due. While I am cited to no
822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Board or court decision establishing such a statement as an
unfair labor practice or as conduct interfering with the re-
sults of the election, it seems clear to me that such a state-
ment plainly implies that the defeat of the Union is
necessary for the correction of employee dissatisfaction,
and I find that by such statement the Corn any engaged in
unfair labor practices within Section 8(a)(1) ofthe Act and
in conduct ii.cerfenng with the results of the election.
B. The Floorgirls-Interrogat ion, Threats, and Grant of
Wage Increase
The complaint alleges that Floorgirls Alice Covington,
Ina Ruth Fields , and Wanda Madden are supervisors and,
as agents of the Company, engaged in various acts of inter-
ference , restraint and coercion within the purview of Sec-
tion 8(a)(l) of the Act . The answer denies their supervisory
status and the commission of any unfair labor practices.
1. The status of the floorgirls
In the representation proceeding here involved the Com-
pany took the position that the floorgirls here involved were
supervisors and should be excluded from the unit ; the Act-
ing Regional Director in his Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion agreed with the company position and excluded them
as supervisory . In the instant case testimony as to their
status has been received from employees working under
them , from General Manager Paul Leiby , and from two of
the floorgirls.
General Manager Leiby testified that there are nine floor-
girls , each with 20 to 24 employees under her and that they
are part of management . There are , according to Leiby,
some 225 rank-and-file employees . Leiby testified that
floorgirls have authority to layoff employees under them, to
give work assignments , to send girls home for refusal to
perform assigned duties, and issue oral reprimands ; he fur-
ther testified that he had accepted their recommendations
concerning discharge . Floorgirl Covington testified that she
directs the work of the girls under her , had laid off girls and
meets monthly with Leiby and Lucille Samples, the latter
having authority over all floorgiris and, apparently Leiby's
right hand on production problems . Floorgirl Madden's tes-
timony is to the effect that she and the other floorgirls
attend meetings with Leiby and Samples on production
problems . She was , according to her account , told by Leiby
and Samples that she was a supervisor and she has given
employees time off for personal problems . No one else in
her unit assigns work to operators . Although Fields was not
interrogated as to her duties and authority , it is apparent
from Leiby 's testimony that she has a status comparable to
that of Covington and Madden.
I conclude that the evidence abundantly preponderates in
favor of the conclusion that the floorgirls were at all mate-
rial times supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of
the Act.
C. Floorgirls' Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
1. Alice Covington
Alice Covington is alleged to have, on or about March
3 In the representation proceedings the Company took the position that the
floorgirls were supervisors and should be excluded from the unit . The Re-
gional Director found that they possessed authority responsibly to direct the
work of employees under them and were supervisors and excluded from the
unit In that proceeding the Union had taken the position that floorgirls were
nonsupervisory and should be included in the unit.
4, interrogated an employee concerning the latter's union
membership, activity, and desires, and to have, on or about
the same date, threatened an employee with plant closure if
the Union were selected as the bargaining representative.
Jessie Haynie, a 21-month employee of the Company in
its trim section where she works with no assigned floorgirl,
was a member of the Union's employee organizing commit-
tee. Badges were distributed by the Union to those employ-
ees serving on the committee but Haynie was late in
receiving her badge due to her having missed a union meet-
ing on the night of the badge distribution. On the morning
when badges first appeared on employees, Covington asked
her where her badge was. After Haynie explained the delay
in her receipt of the badge, Covington, according to Haynie,
asked her why she wanted to support the Union. When
Haynie, according to her testimony, stated that she was a
believer in union representation, Covington, according to
Haynie, stated that if the Union got in the plant would shut
down. Although Covington denied making the statements
attributed to her, I credit Haynie 's account and find that on
this occasion the Company, through Covington, engaged in
unlawful interrogation and a threat of plant closure as a
consequence of union organization and that thereby the
Company eng )gj in unfair labor practices within the scope
of Section 8(a (1 of the Act.
2. Ina Ruth Fields
The complaint alleges that on or about February 4, at an
employee's home, Fields threatened employees with closure
and removal of the company plant if the Union succeeded
in the pending election; it is also alleged that Fields, on or
about March 24, at the company plant, threatened employ-
ees with discharge for engaging in union activities.
There was a meeting at the home of employees Thelma
Davis, a company employee and wife of the mayor of Ash-
down, on the night of February 4. Employees were informed
of the meeting by Floorgirl Fields and about thirty attend-
ed. Fields andFrankie Slayton, secretary to Leiby, were also
present. The meeting lasted approximately 2 1-2 hours.
Polly Bryan, employed by the Company at the time of the
meeting but discharged, allegedly discnminatorily, subse-
quently, testified that in the course of the meeting employee
Marvo Newman said that she had heard that the Company
would close if the Union got in and, when asked the source
of her information, stated that Seiff had told her. Hostess
Thelma Davis and employee Cecilia Hooker stated to the
meeting that Seiff had given them like information. Em-
ployee Hazel Cleghorn corroborated the essentials of
Bryan s testimony.
The contention of the General Counsel respecting the
February 4 meeting is that the Company engaged in an
unfair labor practice by Field's failure to disavow the state-
ments attributed to Seiff. This ignores the uncontra-
dicted testimony of Bryan to the effect that the hostess, Mrs.
Davis, ordered Fields and Slayton not to talk to the meeting.
I conclude that the evidence does not preponderate in favor
of the conclusion that the Company engaged in unlawful
threats of plant shutdown or removal during the course of
the February 4 meeting.
With respect to the allegation of a threat by Fields on
March 24 at the plant, employee Leona Altenbaumer testi-
fied that on the Tuesday prior to the election, Fields came
to her and her niece Shelba Clowdis while they were on their
lunch hour and said that she had been told that those em-
ployees who Wore union badges would be fired if the Union
did not get in. Later, according to her account, she asked
Fields the source of her information and was told by Fields
SPOTLIGHT COMPANY, INC.
that it came from Floorgirl Ford. Clowdis' account of the
incident is that Fields first asked her if they could be fired
for wearing union badges and when she replied that as far
as they knew they could not, Fields said that she had heard
that they could. I credit Altenbaumer's account of the con-
versation notwithstanding Fields' denial of it and find that
the incident in question constituted an unfair labor practice
on the part of the Company.
3. Wanda Madden
Madden is alleged to have, on about March 6, interrogat-
ed an employee as to her union membership, activities, and
desires , and, on the same date , granted an employee a wage
increase to dissuade her from supporting the Union. The
employee in question is a sewing machine operator, Mildred
Scarborough, employed since September 1968 on a piece-
rate operation under Madden's supervision. Scarborough
testified that while at lunch sometime in mid-March she and
Madden exchanged reading of each others campaign but-
tons-Scarborough wearing a union organizer's badge at
the time while Madden wore one of the "Vote No" but-
tons-and thereafter, according to Scarborough, Madden
asked her what she thought the Union could do for the
employees, to which Scarborough replied that it could affect
the unfair piece rates. Madden replied, according to Scar-
borough, that the Union could not make the Company give
employees a contract and Scarborough retorted that the
Union could make the Com any bargain for one. On the
same day, after lunch Lucille Samples timed herjob for the
first time in 18 months, this clearly at the suggestion of
Madden, and that evening Madden informed her of a 5-cent
pay increase.
Madden did not directly deny Scarborough's account of
the lunchtime exchange concerning buttons. General
Counsel's brief asserts that the exchange concerning but-
tons constituted interrogation for the purpose of eradicating
complaints and thereby extirpating the causes of prounion
sentiment. I cannot read any such sinister implications into
this friendly and casual exchange between two people each
of whom knew well the other's sentiments on the issue of
union organization. Furthermore the remedying of what
had been termed unfair piece rates by Scarborough is not
shown to have been necessarily or even probably related to
the union campaign or bottomed on a desire to influence
Scarborough or any other employees on the union issue
particularly since the adjustment in rate does not appear to
have been given any publicity. The Company could not be
required to withhold action on what was found to have been
a legitimate employee grievance. I recommend dismissal of
the allegations relating to Wanda Madden.
D. Outside Agents
1. Darol Bell-threats
James Darol Bell, president of the First National Bank
of Ashdown, is alleged to have, in March, shortly prior to
the election, as an agent of the Company, threatened em-
ployees on two occasions, at the bank and at a Church
service, with closing of the company plant if the Union were
selected as their bargaining representative. The Company's
answer denies his agency and the commission of the unfair
labor practices alleged.
Samples appears from the evidence to work directly under Leiby and to
have some authority over the floorgirls It is clear that she had authority to
act on behalf of the Company
823
At the time of the events herein concerned, Darol Bell
had been president of the First National Bank for about 2
years and president of the Ashdown Chamber of Commerce
for a few months. In November 1969 Bell attended a United
Fund campaign meeting at the Companyy which was also
attended by Leiby. At the close of the OF meeting, Bell
asked Leiby's views on the prospects of the pending union
organizational drive. According to Bell , Leiby said that the
Company had a good chance but that it might have to be
closed if the Union won the election because of the adverse
effect on profits and ability to compete. Later, sometime
shortly prior to the election herein involved, Bell repeated
these remarks to employees Bryan at their church and Costa
at the bank.
There is no evidence that Bell was authorized expressly
or by implication to speak on behalf of the Company and
there is no evidence that company officials had knowledge
of his conversations with Bryan and Costa, which knowl-
edge if it existed might import a duty to take affirmative
measures to counter Bell's action. I conclude that there is
no basis either for finding an unfair labor practice on the
part of the Company in Bell 's statements to Bryan and
Costa, or for regarding the statements as constituting em-
ployer conduct interfering with the results of the election.
2. Herbert McCanless-threats
Herbert McCanless , an Ashdown businessman for some
16 years, and operator of a drive-in eating establishment in
town, operates an employee sandwich concession at the
Comppany. Shortly before the election here involved
McGanless heard some discussion in the First National
Bank lobby concerning the possibility of the Company's
shutting down if the Union won the election. On the Sat-
urday prior to the election employees Altenbaumer and
Bernice Booth handed some proumon literature to McCan-
less at his drive-in. In the ensuing conversation McCanless
raised the question of the plant closing and , when Booth
asked what he had heard in this regard, McCanless , accord-
ing to Altenbaumer and Booth, said that he had heard from
Bell in the bank that Leiby had told him that the plant
would close if it went Union . I credit the testimony of
Altenbaumer and Booth.
There is no evidence that any officer or agent of the
Company knew of the discussion among McCanless and
employees Altenbaumer and Booth at McCanless ' restau-
rant . There is therefore no duty to disavow his remarks. I
recommend dismissal of the allegations of the complaint
and the objections based on the preelection conversation in
McCanless' restaurant.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Company set forth in section 111,
above, and there found to constitute unfair labor practices,
occurring in connection with the operations of the Compa-
ny set forth in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burden-
ing and obstructing such commerce and the free flow there-
of.
v THE REMEDY
In view of the findings above set forth to the effect that
the Company has engaged in certain unfair labor practices
824 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
affecting commerce, it will be recommended that it be re-
quired to cease and desist therefrom and take such affirma-
tive action as appears necessary and appropriate to
effectuate the policies of the Act. It also appears necessary
that the results of the election herein be set aside and that
the representation case be severed and remanded to the
Regional Director for further proceedings.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon
the entire record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Company is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By threatening employees with the loss of their right to
present grievances directly to the Company as a conse-
quence of selecting the Union as their bargaining represent-
ative , the Company has engaged in unfair labor practices
within Section 8(axl) of the Act.
4. By threatening employees with the statement the defeat
of the Union was necessary to the correction of employee
grievances , the Company has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices defined in Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. By interrogating employees coercively respecting their
union membership , desires , and activities , the Company has
engaged in unfair labor practices defined in Section 8(a) (1)
of the Act.
6. By threatening employees with discharge in reprisal for
legitimate activity in support of the Union , the Company
has engaged in unfair labor practices within the scope of
Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
7. Except as specifically otherwise found herein , the Com-
pany has not engaged in unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint.
8. Objections 1, 2, 3, and 4 have merit as found herein and
the election herein should be set aside and proceedings re-
manded to the Regional Director for conduct of a second
election at such time as the effects of the Company 's unfair
labor practices and interference with the election results
have been dissipated.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclu-
sions of law and upon the entire record in this case, it is
recommended that the Company, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating employees respecting their
union membership, desires, and activities.
(b) Threatening employees with discharge for union
activity with statements that the defeat of the Union was
necessary for correction of grievances, or with statements
that selection of the Union as bargaining representative
would entail loss of the right to present grievances directly
to the Company.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights under the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which appears
necessary and appropriate to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Post at its plant at Ashdown, Arkansas, copies of the
notice attached marked "Appendix."5 Copies of said notice,
y the Regional Director for Region 26,on forms provided b;,
after being duly signed by an authorized representative of
the Company, be posted by the Company immediately
upon receipt thereof, and shall be maintained by it for a
period of 60 consecutive days, in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are custom-
arily posted. Reasonable steps shalf be taken by the
Company to ensure that said notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 26, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from receipt of this Decision', what
steps have been taken to comply with the terms hereof.
It is further recommended that the complaint herein be
dismissed with respect to allegations of unfair labor prac-
tices therein not herein specifically found to have been en-
gaged in.
It is finally recommended that the election conducted
herein be set aside and that proceedings in Case 26-RC-
3693 be severed and remanded to the Regional Director for
further disposition not inconsistent with the findings herein.
3 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, recommendations, 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 . In the event that the Board's
Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the
words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals enforcing an Order of the National Labor
Relations Board."
6In the event this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this
provision shall be modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director for Re-
gion 26, in writing, within 10 days from receipt of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith."