Teleflex Industrial Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 28, 1967

166 N.L.R.B. 71 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

TELEFLEX INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS
Teleflex Industrial Products, Inc. and International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO.
Cases 8--CA-4291, 8-CA-4423, and
8-RC-6480
June 28,1967
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND BROWN
On April 28, 1967, Trial Examiner Ivar H. Peter-
son issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceedings, finding that Respondent had engaged
in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
and recommending that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He
further found that Respondent had not engaged in
certain other unfair labor practices and recom-
mended dismissal as to them. The Trial Examiner
further found that certain conduct engaged in by
Respondent constituted grounds for setting aside
the election conducted in'Case 8-RC-6480 on Oc-
tober 14, 1966. Thereafter the Respondent-Em-
ployer filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and
the Charging Party filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, the National 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
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and
brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner. i
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby
orders that Respondent, Teleflex Industrial
Products, Inc., Van Wert, Ohio, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint
herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it al-
leges violations of the Act not found herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held on
October 14, 1966, among the employees in the
166 NLRB No. 37
71
designated unit at Teleflex Industrial Products,
Inc., Van Wert, Ohio, be, and it hereby is, set aside.
[Direction of Second Election 2 omitted from
publication. ]
' The Trial Examiner's findings and conclusions are based , in part, upon
credibility determinations , to which the Respondent has excepted. After
a careful review of the record , we conclude that the Trial Examiner's
credibility findings are not contrary to the clear preponderance of all rele-
vant evidence . Accordingly , we find no basis for disturbing those findings.
Standard Dry Wall Products , Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d 362
(C.A. 3).
8 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 8 within 7 days after the date of issuance of the
Notice of Second Election by the Regional Director . The Regional
Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election. No ex-
tension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director ex-
cept in extraordinary circumstances Failure to comply with this require-
ment shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper ob-
jections are filed. Excelsior Underwear Inc , 156 NLRB 1236.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
IVAR H . PETERSON , Trial Examiner : Upon charges
filed on July 11, 1966 , amended on August 15, by Inter-
national Union , United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America , AFL-CIO,
herein called the Union , the General Counsel of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board , by the Regional Director
for Region 8, issued a complaint on August 19 against
Teleflex Industrial Products , Inc., herein called the
Respondent , alleging that the Respondent had violated
Section 8 (a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations
Act by terminating and refusing to reinstate an employee,
Patricia Blue. Thereafter , pursuant to a representation
petition filed by the Union on September 20, 1966 (Case
8-RC-6480), and a stipulation for certification upon con-
sent election executed by the Union and the Respondent
and approved by the Regional Director, an election was
conducted among the Respondent's production and main-
tenance employees on October 14, resulting in a vote of
64 to 41 against the Union . Timely objections were filed
by the Union, and an additional charge on November 23
(Case 8-CA-4423), alleging violation of Section 8(a)(1)
by substantially the same conduct as formed the basis of
its objections to the election . In his report on objections
issued on December 1 the Regional Director stated that,
since the evidence offered in support of the objections
was substantially identical to that offered in support of
the allegations in Case 8-CA-4423, and raised substan-
tial credibility issues, a consolidated hearing would be
held on the objections and on the complaint to issue in
Case 8-CA-4423. The complaint in the latter case issued
on December 5, and on the same date the Regional
Director issued an order consolidating the three cases for
the purposes of hearing . The Respondent filed timely an-
swers to each of the complaints, denying that it had en-
gaged in any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held by me on Janu-
ary 18 and 19, 1967, at Van Wert, Ohio, in which all
parties participated. Thereafter , the General Counsel, the
Respondent , and the Union filed briefs, which have been
fully considered.
72 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the basis of the entire record in the consolidated
proceeding, and from my observation of the witnesses
and their demeanor, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
The Respondent, an Ohio corporation, is engaged at its
Van Wert, Ohio, plant in the manufacture and sale of corn
trols for the aircraft, automotive, and boating industries.
It annually sells and ships manufactured products valued
in excess of $$50,000 from its Van Wert plant to points
outside the State of Ohio. The Respondent admits and I
find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Discharge of Patricia Blue
Mrs. Blue began work for the Respondent on May 9,1
the same date as eight other employees. She and the other
eight employees who started work that day were told that
their employment was temporary and was expected to
last about 3 weeks. At her initial employment interview
Mrs. Blue was told that if at the end of the 3 weeks the
temporary employees were laid off they would be eligible
for future recall in the event additional jobs opened up
because they would be experienced.
Shortly before the end of the 3-week period Mrs. Blue
and other employees on the third shift were told by
General Foreman Richard Hughes, so Mrs. Blue
testified, that the third shift would continue and no one
would be laid off.2 About a week later Blue's immediate
foreman, Blane Sturgill, indicated to her that the third
shift might be discontinued but that the qualified tempora-
ry employees would continue to be employed and asked
her as to her shift preference in that event. Blue told him
she would prefer the second shift and Sturgill said that
she would "get to stay because I have got your name on
the top of the list." The third shift was not discontinued
and was operating at the time of the hearing; however,
Mrs. Blue was terminated on June 18, as will sub-
sequently appear.
The Union began its organizational efforts about May
10, when Arthur Fagan, an International representative,
contacted employee Frances Turnwald and gave her a
supply of union authorization cards to distribute among
the employees. Fagan held a meeting on May 26 with six
or eight employees, all of whom signed cards and
received additional cards to use in signing up other em-
ployees. Between May 26 and June 18 some 25 or 30
signed authorization cards had been returned to the
' Unless otherwise indicated, all dates refer to the year 1966.
2 Hughes testified he told the group that "if the employees themselves
would ever become permanent there is a possibility that the third shift
may stay on " It is unnecessary to resolve this conflict.
3 Blue and Thatcher had been employed on the same day, May 9, as
had the other temporary employees, and their clock numbers were,
respectively, 6097 and 6098 The Respondent's published policy provided
Union. Mrs. Blue signed a card and in addition obtained
signed cards from six other employees. About June 11
she distributed two other cards that were not returned to
her.
Early during the week ending Saturday, June 18, the
sixth week of employment of the temporary employees,
Hachy Horasan, the Respondent's manufacturing
manager, determined (so he testified) that production
requirements necessitated terminating three of the tempo-
rary employees. He asked General Foreman Hughes
"whether he had anyone that he wanted to terminate,"
and Hughes mentioned J. Gutierrez and C. Stevens as
two that he considered should be released. They were ter-
minated at the end of the third shift on June 16. Horasan
told Hughes that he would select the third person to be
terminated, and testified that one reason he decided to
"handle it myself" was to create "as little disturbance in
the plant and be as fair as possible to all concerned."
Horasan further testified that since the selection of the
third person to be laid off would be from the temporary
employees on the third shift and because the Respondent
"had already anticipated discharging" Sturgill, the
foreman on the third shift, he did not seek advice from
Sturgill. Inasmuch as Horasan had no personal
knowledge of the relative abilities of the temporary em-
ployees, he consulted the production efficiency sheets of
the two junior temporary employees, Blue and M.
Thatcher, for the preceding 2 or 3 weeks.3 Horasan
testified that he looked at the production records "rather
superficially" and concluded therefrom that Blue "was
somewhat less efficient" than Thatcher. He acknowl-
edged that, upon the basis of computations made during
the prehearing investigation, the difference between
Blue's production efficiency and Thatcher's was "slight,"
that the recorded daily efficiencies of the temporary em-
ployees varied widely from standard, and that during this
period the Respondent was experiencing difficulties with
machine breakdowns.
General Foreman Hughes, testified that, after being in-
formed by Horasan that Blue was to be terminated, he left
a note to that effect on June 17 for the third shift foreman,
Sturgill. According to Hughes, the note stated in sub-
stance that Blue was to be released on account of her inef-
ficiency and because she was not suited for the Respond-
ent's type of operation. Hughes further testified that
after Mrs. Blue had been released he received a telephone
call from her in which she asked why she had been ter-
minated and that he told her it was for efficiency reasons
and that he felt she was not suited for the work. To her
inquiry whether she would be rehired, Hughes testified
that he replied that that was up to the personnel depart-
ment. The following week Hughes made out a termina-
tion report for Mrs. Blue, giving as the reason for her
discharge: "Because of not meeting standards. Plus was
not improving." He also checked the box on the form
stating that he "would not accept this employee for work
in my department under any conditions," and explained
this by adding that if she could not meet standards in 6
weeks of employment she would not be able to meet stan-
dards if "given another chance."
that, in the case of employees hired the same day the employee with the
lower clock number "will be recognized as having longer length of service
than employees having higher clock numbers " In the case of temporary
layoff, employees "with the least amount of service shall be the first laid
off." Horasan testified that it was pursuant to this policy that he consulted
only the production efficiency records of Blue and Thatcher
TELEFLEX INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS
Mrs. Blue testified that about 1 : 30 a.m. on June 18
Foreman Sturgill told her she was to be laid off that night;
when she asked him why, he replied , "Because you are
temporary help." She answered that she did not think that
was a good reason , and Sturgill then showed her the note
Hughes had left . Her recollection of the content of the
note was that it directed Sturgill to lay her off "as of
tonight" and to give as the reason "temporary help." She
testified that she told Sturgill that she thought she would
call Hughes in the morning after completion of the shift
to "talk to him and find out what the reason was that I
was laid off." To this, Sturgill answered, "Maybe you
better not call, because that is going to add more kindling
to the fire and he probably won't give you a reason." She
did call Hughes, on Saturday morning after completing
the shift , and testified that she asked him if she was "laid
off or fired," and that he replied she was laid off and that
he had no reason to fire her. When she said the other tem-
porary girls were still working, Hughes answered that
within a week the third shift would be discontinued and
all the girls on that shift would be laid off. To her inquiry
whether she would be called back Hughes answered that
he could not promise that she would , as that was up to
Horasan and William Myers of the personnel department.
Sturgill, who was also terminated by the Respondent
on June 18, testified as a witness for the General Counsel
regarding the discharge of Mrs. Blue and her ability as a
worker. About 3 or 4 weeks before her termination, by
his account, he and Raymond Sonya,4 the second-shift
foreman , were in conversation on a Saturday morning
with Hughes near the latter 's office. Sonya stated, ac-
cording to Sturgill , that he had been told by one of the
girls under his supervision that Mrs. Blue "was talking
about a union"; Hughes remarked , by Sturgill 's account,
"that is another one we are going to have to get rid of."
Three or four days later, while Sturgill was in Hughes' of-
fice , Hughes said, "We are going to have to get rid of Pat
Blue, she has been talking about a union ," and added that
he did not care what kind of reason was given but to find
a reason. Sturgill said that it would be difficult to find a
reason as Blue was one of the best workers under his su-
pervision . When Sturgill found Hughes ' note on the night
of June 17 directing him to terminate Blue, he telephoned
Hughes to discuss the matter . His testimony on direct ex-
amination as to the content of the note and his conversa-
tion with Hughes was as follows:
Q. As well as you can recall what did the note say?
A. As much as I can remember of the note it said get
rid of Pat Blue and use the reason that she is on tem-
porary help, that is as much as I can remember.
Q. Do you have this note?
A. No, I don't I threw it away.
Q. All right, you say you then called Mr. Hughes?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you describe for us the conversation
between yourself and Mr. Hughes on the telephone?
73
A. I called Hughes and asked him about the note
and he said yes to get rid of her about five minutes
before quitting time . I told him that she was one of
the best workers and he said she has been talking
more about the union and that was it.
On cross-examination Sturgill testified as follows in
this regard:
Q. All right now.... when were you given instruc-
tions to terminate her?
A. On the night of June 17, when I went to use
Hughes' office to get information for the work.
Q. You didn 't expect to see him but to see if he left
anything for you?
A. To see if he left anything for me.
Q. And you found a note, is that right?
A. I found a note.
Q. The note said what?
A. To get rid of Pat Blue and use the reason that she
is only temporary help.
* * * *
Q. (By Mr. Lees) Was it the impression that you got
from the note left by Hughes that you were supposed
to get rid of her permanently?
A. Over the phone that was explained to me, I
didn 't get much out of the note.
Q. You called Hughes up and what did he say to
you then?
A. He said we would have to get rid of her [as] she
was talking too much about the union.
Q. You didn't gather from that she was supposed to
get her job back did you?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. You are saying that you went to her then and
said that she was laid off?
A. Yes.
Q. What did she say to you and what did you say to
her?
A. She wanted to know what the reason was. I just
told her that she was laid off, that that 's the way that
Dick [Hughes] wanted it.
4 The General Counsel's motion to correct the transcript to show
Sonya's name as above, rather than "Sonia," is granted.
74 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Q. Did you understand that when she walked away
from you that she thought that she was going to get
her job back?
* *
A. When i said she was laid off she might have had
that impression.
Q. She might have got the impression from the word
you used?
A. Yeah, layoff, she might have thought she would
be called back.
According to Sturgill, about 3 or 4 weeks before Blue's
termination he was asked by Hughes to rate the em-
ployees on the third shift as to their attitude toward their
work and their adaptability. It is his testimony that he
rated Mrs. Blue as the best on the basis of these criteria
and that he submitted the rating results to Hughes in
writing.5 He did not, however, consult production
records in making his evaluation, as these were available
in the office. As set forth above, Sturgill also told Hughes,
in the second conversation in which Hughes said they
would have to get rid of Mrs. Blue because she was "talk-
ing about a union," that it would be difficult to find a
reason as she was one of the best workers under his su-
pervision; he repeated that evaluation in talking with
Hughes the night of June 17, after receiving Hughes' note
to terminate Mrs. Blue but before doing so.
Hughes testified that he did not remember having a
meeting with Sonya and Sturgill on a Saturday morning,
as testified by Sturgill, in which Sonya identified Mrs.
Blue as being engaged in union activity and Hughes com-
mented that she would have to be terminated.6 Hughes
was not questioned specifically about the conversation
that Sturgill testified that he and Hughes had 3 or 4 days
later, in which Hughes allegedly said Mrs. Blue was
"talking about a union" and that a reason would have to
be found to get rid of her. Nor was he questioned about
the telephone call Sturgill testified that he made to
Hughes the night of June 17, after receiving Hughes' note
to lay off Mrs. Blue, in which Hughes, according to Stur-
gill, again said she was to be terminated because she had
been "talking more about the union." Hughes did testify
that, at the time of the alleged conversation in which
Sonya identified Mrs. Blue as talking about a union, he
was unaware of any union activity on her part; he an-
swered negatively when asked whether "at the meeting
or at any other time" he made "the comment that Sturgill
said that you made to Sturgill and Sonya."
As of Wednesday, June 22, the week following Mrs.
Blue's termination, the remaining five temporary em-
ployees were given permanent status. During the balance
of June following Mrs. Blue's discharge, the Respondent
hired 11 new employees and terminated 2 employees, for
a net increase of 9, and in the next 3 months hired a total
of 67 new employees for a net increase of 22 in its work
force.7 Mrs. Blue was not offered reemployment.
Both Mrs. Blue and Sturgill impressed me as
straightforward, sincere witnesses. I preceived nothing in
their demeanor while testifying to suggest that their ac-
counts were fabricated or colored by bias. On the other
hand, General Foreman Hughes appeared to me to be
less than candid. Although he characterized the preelec-
tion campaign as being "very bitter" and attended by an
unnecessary gathering of employees, he initially testified
that he first learned of the Union's efforts to organize
when the conference to arrange the consent election was
held, which would be sometime after the petition was'
filed on September 20, but then stated he became aware
of such activity earlier. Although he testified he was not
aware of Mrs. Blue's union activity 3 or 4 weeks before
her termination, and denied commenting thereon at the
meeting with Sturgill and Sonya "or at any other time,"
he was not asked directly about the June 17 telephone
conversation with Sturgill in which he again said (accord-
ing to Sturgill) that Mrs. Blue would have to be released
because she had been "talking more about the union."
The testimony of Hughes regarding the content of the
note he left for Sturgill and the conversation he had with
Mrs. Blue after her discharge, seems implausible. If, as he
testified, the note stated Blue was to be released because
of low production and unsuited to the Respondent's
operations, the message would certainly have been clear
that she was being terminated and not laid off and thus
made unnecessary (or at least superfluous) Blue's later
inquiry, after seeing the note and completing the shift,
about her status and the possibility of future employment.
I doubt that Mrs. Blue, a mature woman, would ask
Hughes about the possibility of future employment after
reading the note directing her termination in the terms
testified to by Hughes and after being told the same thing
in the telephone conversation. Nor do I believe that Stur-
gill would have called Hughes on the night of June 17 if
the note was as unambiguous as Hughes would have it. I
am persuaded that Blue and Sturgill were more reliable
witnesses than Hughes, and accordingly I credit their
testimony where it is in conflict with that of Hughes.
Thus I find, consistent with Sturgill's testimony, that
Hughes learned of Blue's union activity from Foreman
Sonya 3 or 4 weeks before her termination and on that oc-
casion, as well as a few days later, remarked to Sturgill
that she would have to be terminated. I further find that
the note left by Hughes for Sturgill said Mrs. Blue was to
be laid off or let go because she was temporary help and
that when Sturgill called Hughes Friday evening, June
17, to ask Hughes about the note, Hughes made clear
that Blue was to be terminated, despite Sturgill's state-
ment that she was one of the best workers, because she
had been "talking more about the union." When Blue was
informed by Sturgill that she was laid off because she was
temporary help, she remarked that she did not think that
was a good reason; thereupon Sturgill showed her
Hughes' note. She then said that she thought she would
call Hughes in the morning after finishing the shift and
ask him why she was laid off; Sturgill's cryptic reply was
that perhaps she should not call Hughes as that would
5 Hughes admitted that he had requested Sturgill to make such an Month New hires Terminations Net Increase
evaluation, but could not recall receiving a written report or being told by
Sturgill that any particular individual was the best of the group. July 14 11 3
B Although a witness for the Respondent, Foreman Sonya was not August 16 11 5
questioned about this incident. September 37 23 14
7 A stipulation of the parties regarding new hires and terminations Total 67 45 22reveals the following for the months ofJuly, August, and September:
TELEFLEX INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS
"add more kindling to the fire and he probably won't give
you a reason."8 I credit Blue's testimony that Hughes
told her, when she did talk to him Saturday morning, that
she was laid off and not fired as he had no reason to
discharge her, that the third shift would be discontinued
in a week and the remaining temporary employees laid
off, and that he could not promise she would be recalled
as that was up to Horasan and Myers of the personnel de-
partment.
As is apparent from the testimony of Horasan and
Hughes, the Respondent would have it that the selection
of the third person to be terminated was undertaken by
Horasan after Hughes had determined that the first two
to be released were Gutierrez and Stevens on the basis of
their poor performance; that in superficially comparing
the production records of the two junior temporary em-
ployees, Blue and Thatcher, Horasan concluded that the
senior of the two, Blue, was "somewhat less efficient"
and that she therefore should be the one to be released;
and that when this decision was communicated to
Hughes, the latter effectuated it. There are several
aspects of Horasan's testimony which persuade me,
wholly apart from the appraisal I have previously made
of Hughes' account of his part in the termination of Mrs.
Blue, that her union activity was a factor motivating
Horasan in selecting her for termination. On direct ex-
amination, he testified that he undertook to select the
third person from among the temporary employees on the
third shift for two reasons: (1) because of the anticipated
discharge of the foreman on that shift (Sturgill) he did not
wish to seek his advice, and (2) "so that there would be
as little disturbance in the plant and be as fair as possible
to all concerned." However, on cross-examination
Horasan stated that he did not leave the selection to
Hughes because "Mr. Hughes is a young man, he doesn't
have quite the experience that I have and we are trying to
work the plant as harmonious as possible. We knew that
there was an attempt by Mine Workers to organize our
plant, we did not want any unfair labor practices, and we
also wanted to make the girls as happy as possible."
When asked on direct examination whether his decision
to terminate Mrs. Blue was "based on union activity,"
Horasan answered, rather obliquely it seemed to me, "At
that time I was not aware that the UAW-CIO was active
in our plant." 'During subsequent examination he stated
that the organizing efforts of the Mine Workers occurred
in late March or early April, but had apparently ceased by
June 3, when he made a speech to the employees. In the
speech he referred to the Union, mentioned some difficul-
ty incident to a strike of the UAW at another plant of the
Company, and emphasized to the employees "that stay-
ing nonunion would be to their best interest." Horasan's
explanation of why he reviewed only the production effi-
ciency records of Blue and Thatcher and did not apply the
company policy of laying off the person with the lowest
seniority, which would have been Thatcher, is less than
convincing. When asked why he "didn't lay off the lowest
person in seniority and be done with it," he answered, "I
thought it was good practice, I am supposed to in-
vestigate." However, when asked why he did not review
the records of all the temporary employees, he answered,
"Because probably I would have been in more trouble."9
8 1 infer that by this statement Sturgill had reference to what Hughes
had told him in their earlier telephone conversation - that the real reason
was that Blue was continuing to talk about the Union.
9 The production efficiency records show that one of the temporary em-
75
I
The conclusion I come to is that Mrs. Blue's activity in
behalf of the Union was a substantial contributing factor
in the Respondent's decision to terminate her. As found
above, about a month before her discharge General
Foreman Hughes was informed of her activity and at that
time stated she would have to be released. He repeated
this a few days later, emphasizing that he did not care
what kind of reason was given but that one had to be
found. Although there is no direct evidence that Hughes
communicated his knowledge of Blue's interest in the
Union to Horasan, I infer from Hughes' statements to
Sturgill concerning Blue and Horasan's declared purpose
to keep the plant nonunion made in his speech to em-
ployees 2 weeks before Blue was terminated and of which
Hughes was aware, that Horasan knew Blue was a union
adherent before he decided to terminate her. Horasan, I
am convinced, concluded after reviewing the production
efficiency records of Blue and Thatcher, the two most ju-
nior employees, that the slightly better efficiency rating
of Thatcher furnished a convenient pretext for departing
from the established policy of laying off the most junior
employee (Thatcher) and eliminating Mrs. Blue, a known
supporter of the Union. According, I find that the
Respondent terminated Patricia Blue's employment on
June 18 because of her activity in behalf of the Union and
thereby violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
B. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
The complaint alleges that during the period preceding
the election on October 14 the Respondent, by several of
the supervisory employees, unlawfully interfered with its
employees' self-organizational rights by interrogation,
threats, and promise of benefit. Additionally, the com-
plaint alleges that General Foreman Hughes engaged in
surveillance of a union meeting on October 6 and later,
on October 11, gave the impression that employees' ac-
tivities were being watched, and that on October 12 the
Respondent in a letter to employees threatened them with
loss of employment if the Union were successful in its or-
ganizing efforts.
1. The evidence
Rolland Blanke, an employee of the Respondent until
the middle of November, related that before the election
he and fellow employees in his department had discus-
sions concerning the Union, in which Foreman Webster
Benner participated. In one such discussion, a few days
before the election, Benner asked Blanke what he thought
the Union would do for him; Blanke replied that he would
get job security and proper seniority. According to
Blanke, Benner stated that without the Union the Com-
pany would be more lenient, that after the Union came in
production standards would be raised, and that the Com-
pany was "working on a profit sharing plan" and there
would be a raise by the first of the year. Benner also
referred to his own experiences with the Union at another
plant, explaining that employees there "had lost a lot of
work" as a result of attempting to organize. Foreman
Benner admitted that he asked Blanke what he thought
about the Union and told him that with a union plant rules
ployees who was made permanent, B. Miller, had a rating of 37 percent,
compared to Blue 's 44 percent and Thatcher 's 61 percent. However, ac-
cording to Horasan the conversion of Miller to permanent status was
made without reviewing her relative efficiency.
76 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
would be more strictly enforced, basing his comments on
his prior experience. He denied saying anything about an
increase in wages or a profit-sharing plan. Benner
testified he could not remember saying that employees
would lose their employment if the Union were success-
ful.
Employee Ethel Shinabery, who worked under
Foreman Benner at the time of the election, testified that
shortly before the election Benner came to her work place
and "asked me what I thought about the union." When
she replied she was in favor of it, he asked her why and
made some comment, which she could not recall, "why
he didn't think it should be in." Benner acknowledged
that he had talked to Shinabery about the Union, but not
"any more than I had the other employees"; he testified
he did not ask if she was for the Union because "she was
well known as a union person." He spoke to her in the
same vein as to the others, relating his own experiences
with the Union.
I credit the testimony of Blanke and Shinabery con-
cerning the statements made to them by Foreman
Benner. The latter admitted telling Blanke that plant rules
would be more strictly enforced if the Union came in;
although he denied holding out any promise of a raise or
a profit-sharing plan, I conclude he did allude to these
possible benefits in the context of telling Blanke and the
latter's fellow employees why it would be to their ad-
vantage to reject the Union. It seems unlikely to me that
the young, unsophisticated Blanke would, without any
basis, attribute such statements to Benner.
Robert Macklin, a setup man and operator in the con-
duit department, testified that about a week before the
election his foreman, Richard Boroff, said he (Boroff) was
attempting to obtain a 25-cent-an-hour raise for em-
ployees in that department. Macklin could not remember
whether in this conversation there was any discussion
about the Union. Boroff admitted that he talked to
Macklin regarding an increase in pay about October 1,
but stated it was in connection with filling an up-coming
vacancy as group leader on the third shift. Shortly after
the election the vacancy occurred and Macklin was as-
signed to it on a tryout basis but later returned to his
former job. Boroff testified that Macklin, and others in
the same classification, received a 25-cent increase in
January 1967; he denied that any reference was made to
the Union in the October 1 conversation with Macklin.
The complaint alleges that Foreman Sonya about Oc-
tober 13, while distributing company literature to em-
ployees, offered a sum of money for each union represen-
tative they ran over with their automobiles; and that
about October 26 he threatened to discharge an em-
ployee because of her support of the Union. As to the
first incident, Bobbie Daniels, who had quit his employ-
ment in November, testified that he saw Sonya passing
out literature to several employees shortly before the
election and overheard Sonya "tell the girls that the union
representative was passing out propaganda out in front of
the factory and there was a hundred dollar bill for every-
one that they run over on the way home." Sonya admitted
that while distributing literature to employees under his
supervision he stated there was "a hundred dollar bonus
to anyone that ran over a union official in the road," but
10 In the latter part of September Daniels had been transferred from the
job of clerk in production control at $2.50 per hour to the job of setup man
in the production area at $2 per hour. He testified that while in production
testified that he said this "jokingly" and that "the people
I said it to laughed."
Daniels further testified that about the same day as the
foregoing episode he heard Foreman Sonya tell Leon
Brown, Sonya's group leader, that some faulty parts had
been passed by Frances Turnwald, an inspector and ac-
tive in the Union, and that this presented an opportunity
to discharge Turnwald. Sonya testified that he had talked
to Brown about Turnwald and had registered complaints
with her superior about her work. However, he denied
saying to anyone that this furnished an excuse to get rid
of her.
About 3 days before the election Horasan, the Re-
spondent's manufacturing manager, met Mrs. Turnwald
as she was making her inspection rounds in the factory.
It is Mrs. Turnwald's testimony that Horasan said he un-
derstood she was in favor of the Union (a fact which was
then well known); when she replied that she was, he
asked her reasons for supporting the Union and she an-
swered that she thought the employees would gain more
job security and possibly better wages. Horasan said that
she was known as a union supporter when she had been
given and passed the test for the job of inspector about
the middle of September, and stated that she "wouldn't
have necessarily had to be accepted" for that position. He
also asked whether she was not concerned that there
might be a strike if the Union came in, to which she an-
swered no, as a strike would have to be voted upon by the
employees. Horasan then gave an example, from his own
experience as he testified, of a plant where there was no
dispute being picketed by reason of a strike at another
plant, thus causing the employees in the nonstruck plant
to lose work. Horasan testified that the "general lines of
conversation" were as Turnwald had related them.
It is undisputed that during the evening of October 6
General Foreman Hughes was in the parking area of a
service station across the street from the YWCA, where
a union meeting was being held, for at least a substantial
part of the 2- or 2-1/2-hour period that the meeting was in
progress. How he came to be there and his purpose in
being in the vicinity of the meeting are in dispute, the
General Counsel contending that he was there to engage
in surveillance while the Respondent asserts he was there
for innocent purposes.
Former employee Daniels testified that on October 5
Hughes called him into the office and stated that "he had
to know how I stood as far as the union was concerned,"
adding that he (Hughes) had heard from Foreman Sonya
that Daniels "was talking union" and that anyone that
voted for the Union had taken a personal dislike to him-
self (Hughes). Hughes also stated, according to Daniels,
that there would be a general increase in wages in Janua-
ry. In answer to Hughes' inquiry about his attitude
toward the Union, Daniels testified "I told him that he
knew how I stood as far as the union was concerned."10
Hughes then asked Daniels, so the latter testified, when
the next union meeting was to be held, and Daniels
replied the following night at 7:30 at the YWCA; Hughes
said "that he would be outside with his pad and pencil."
The night of the meeting, Daniels saw Hughes as Daniels
was going to the meeting, parked in the parking lot of the
service station across from the YWCA. During the
control he had been "on the fence for awhile" regarding the Union, and
that he answered Hughes' inquiry as he did in order to allow Hughes to
put his own interpretation on Damels' answer.
TELEFLEX INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS 77
course of the meeting , once from the steps of the YWCA
and again from the window of the meeting room , Daniels
observed Hughes still in the same position . After the
meeting ended , and Daniels was leaving , Hughes was still
in the parking lot.
According to Hughes , he called Daniels into the office
on October 5 to talk about Daniels ' work performance,
and told Daniels he was taking too much time in setting
up machines and in talking to the operators . Hughes was
not questioned about whether he asked Daniels where he
stood with respect to the Union. He denied being advised
by Daniels of the union meeting , testifying that before
having Daniels come to the office he was aware from talk
in the plant that there was to be a union meeting the night
of October 6, although he did not know the time or place.
Hughes denied that he told Daniels that he would be
present in the vicinity of the meeting with a pad and pen-
cil. Hughes testified that on the night of October 6,
"roughly at 7:00 or 7:15," he took his car to be serviced
at the gasoline station , parked his car facing the YWCA,
talked to the operator of the station , and went home. He
returned to the station "between 8:00 and 8:30," paid his
bill, and then sat in his car, which was still parked facing
the YWCA, chatting with a friend until he left at 9:15 or
9:30. Asked whether he saw any employees going to the
meeting that night, Hughes answered, "I did not recog-
nize any Teleflex people that whole evening."
Daniels further testified that 3 or 4 days before the
election Hughes asked him if there had been "anything
new" and Daniels told him there was to be another union
meeting, but that Hughes said he was not interested and
knew "that everybody was going to be there."
Questioned about this, Hughes testified that he recalled
Daniels "coming to me and saying there would be another
union meeting. I said I was not interested but I don't ever
remember telling him that I knew already who would at-
tend ." Hughes added that Daniels "would come to me
quite frequently, let's not say quite frequently, but once
in a while" during this period to relate some information
about the Union and its activities.
Under date of October 12, 2 days before the election,
the Respondent mailed a letter to its employees , to which
was attached a 5-page memorandum consisting of 10
questions and answers prepared by Respondent's coun-
sel. The letter, signed by Personnel Director Frank
Woodrow, stated:
Several questions have been raised here i and to
Teleflex's position in the current union activity.
Many of these questions are legal in nature , and I did
not feel qualified to give clean cut, complete answers
and have, therefore, asked our counsel to help us on
this important matter.
The contents of the attached memorandum prepared
by our lawyers are of vital interest to you . I urge that
you read it and consider it carefully.
I believe this material will clarify most of the
questions raised. Feel free to talk about it and if you
have any further questions , I will get the answer.
The memorandum began as follows:
1. QUESTION : What is the position of our Company
regarding the Union 's attempt to organize us?
ANSWER : Your Company is opposed to the Union's
organizing efforts for a number of reasons which
should be of vital interest to all parties concerned.
During the days which still remain before the elec-
tion we shall endeavor to furnish you with our
reasons for believing that a union could do more
harm than good , - could seriously damage the Com-
pany's business and destroy your job security. You
are entitled to have all of the facts in order to weight
them carefully before making your final decision on
this important issue, a decision which can seriously
affect the future welfare of you and your loved ones
as well as this plant.
2. QUESTION : How can we all be damaged by per-
mitting this union to capture you?
ANSWER : First of all, the union could do great
damage to our business by causing us to lose
customers . Some of them have told us that the cur-
rent favorable levels of their orders from us result
from the fact that this plant is nonunion and it is part
of their policies to refrain from overly large commit-
ments to plants with unions . Or, they might disrupt
our service to our customers because of strife, sud-
den conflicts , and by forcing you out on long and
bitter strikers. If you lose business , you lose your job
security -and no union can do anything to prevent
the necessity for terminating the jobs of employees
at this plant under such circumstances . We are op-
posed to anything which might destroy your job
security or damage the business of this plant.
To the next question , whether employees can "control
whether or not our work is disrupted by long and bitter
strikes," the answer was that despite claims "during or-
ganizing campaigns " that strikes must be approved by the
majority , "the way it actually works out is often quite dif-
ferent." To the question whether employees "can auto-
matically gain many concessions " from the employer by
being represented by a union , and whether a union can
"force the company to yield to its demands," the answer
was:
ANSWER: These questions raise some further
questions which every employee should ask himself
before getting involved with a union : WHAT CAN A
UNION GIVE ME IN EXCHANGE FOR ALL THAT IT WILL
COST ME IN MONEY, LOSS OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS,
STRIFE, STRIKES , BITTERNESS AND REGRETS? IS IT
LIKELY THAT I HAVE A GREAT DEAL MORE TO LOSE
THAN I COULD POSSIBLY GAIN FROM GETTING IN-
VOLVED WITH THIS UNION?
The truth of the matter is that the union cannot give
you anything which you want or need because a
union has nothing to give . The union does not pro-
vide jobs, salaries , security or other employment
benefits to its members.
But the union can take away from you an awful
lot, -in dues , fines, special assessments or contribu-
tions which you will be pressured to make . The union
impairs your right to deal with your company, and to
make progress based on your individual worth... .
Not only is the union helpless to give you anything
itself, but it cannot force this Company or anyone
78 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
else to give you anything. Your company has tried to
demonstrate its sincere interest in your welfare....
You can count on your company doing these things
voluntarily without your having to surrender your
money, rights or individuality to any outside union.
Under the law, the union cannot force your company
to make any concessions which we feel are unwise,
impracticable or undesirable. Your company will
voluntarily make the same concessions without a
union as it would make with a union. Your company
does not expect to be forced by threats, strikes and
other forms of coercion to make any concessions to
the union which it would not have made just as readi-
ly without a union. That is why we feel that the union
can neither give you anything nor cause you to get
anything which you could not get just as readily and
at much cheaper cost without a union.
This leaves us with one principal thing that the union
has to offer, which none of us want, - and that is long
and bitter strikes ....
Other answers pointed out that economic strikers can
be replaced, that under Ohio law, strikers do not receive
unemployment compensation, and that being represented
by a union would not abrogate the Company's right to
discharge for improper work or violation of rules, or "to
lay off any employees whom it feels are no longer
needed" in the event business falls off. The final question
and answer were:
QUESTION: Some of us might want to change our
position and vote against the union, but we wonder
whether the company will later retaliate against us?
ANSWER: No. You should feel perfectly free to
change your minds, - and you may be fully assured
that the company has no intention of taking any
reprisals against you for such union activity.
2. Conclusions
I am persuaded that the Respondent, during the
preelection period, did engage in conduct that interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exer-
cise of their Section 7 rights, thereby violating Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. Foreman Benner, I find, a few days be-
fore the election questioned employee Blanke as to what
Blanke expected to gain through the Union, and stated
that without the Union the Respondent would be more
lenient but that with the Union, work rules would be more
strictly enforced and production standards would be
raised. While Benner based these statements, in part,
upon what he described as his experience elsewhere, the
testimony convinces me that he clearly implied that
reprisals would be visited upon the employees if the
Union were successful. I further find that his reference to
a profit-sharing plan and a wage increase around the first
of the year constituted an implied promise of benefit con-
tingent upon the plant remaining unorganized. I credit
Turnwald's testimony and find that about 3 days before
the election Horasan, the Respondent's manufacturing
manager, questioned Turnwald, who was known to him
as a union leader, as to her reasons for supporting the
11 Haynes Stell#e Company Division of Union Carbide Corporation,
136 NLRB 95, enforcement denied sub nom. Union Carbide Corp. V.
Union and in the course of such interrogation pointedly
remarked that she need not have been accepted for the
job of inspector at the time she qualified for it in Sep-
tember. By thus implying that job advancement might be
jeopardized by union activity, Horasan's questioning of
Turnwald, I find, had a tendency to restrain and coerce
Turnwald in the exercise of her right to support and assist
the Union. Daniels impressed me as a more credible wit-
ness than Hughes and I accept the testimony of Daniels
that on October 5 Hughes asked him how he stood with
respect to the Union, said that the general wage increase
would be forthcoming in January, and questioned him as
to when the next union meeting would be held. Such
questioning was plainly coercive and, in the context,
Hughes' statement about a wage increase was a veiled
promise of benefit. I conclude and find that by Benner's
interrogation of Blanke, his threat of reprisal against em-
ployees generally if they organized, and his implied
promise of a profit-sharing plan and a wage increase if the
Union were rejected; by Horasan's questioning of Turn-
wald and implying that her job advancement might be
jeopardized by her union activity; and by Hughes'
questioning of Daniels regarding his attitude toward the
Union and when the next union meeting was to be held,
and impliedly promising a general wage increase, the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Based upon the credited testimony of Daniels and the
admissions of Hughes, I find that Hughes engaged in sur-
veillance of the union meeting on October 6, and that the
Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Although I find that on a later occasion, about October
11, Daniels told Hughes of another meeting, I do not con-
strue Hughes' response-that he was not interested and
knew "that everybody was going to be there"- as indicat-
ing he had advance knowledge of who would attend, thus
creating the impression of having engaged in further sur-
veillance. As I view it, his comment meant no more than
that he assumed all union supporters would be at the
meeting. Accordingly, this "impression of surveillance"
allegation will be dismissed.
Finally, I conclude that the Respondent's letter of Oc-
tober 12 threatened the loss of employment if the Union
won the election, and was therefore violative of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. The Respondent stated that the advent
of the Union "could seriously damage the Company's
business and destroy your job security." This possibility
was not represented as likely to occur only as a con-
sequence of disruptions caused by "long and bitter
strikes" in which the Union might engage, but as the
direct result of selecting the Union. In short, the Re-
spondent represented that orders and business would be
lost if the plant became unionized because an unidentified
number of customers "have told us that the current
favorable levels of their orders from us result from the
fact that this plant is nonunion and it is part of their poli-
cies to refrain from overly large commitments to plants
with unions." Thus the mere selection of the Union
would result in loss of customers or less favorable levels
of orders, with consequent damage to the Respondent's
business and loss of jobs for employees. I find that the
thrust and purpose of the Respondent's letter was to im-
plant in the employees the fear that loss of jobs would in-
evitably follow a union victory, and was therefore viola-
tive of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 1
N L.R.B., 310 F.2d 844 (C.A. 6), see also R D. Cole Manufacturing
Company, 133 NLRB 1455.
TELEFLEX INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS
I find the evidence to be too insubstantial to support a
finding of Section 8(a)(1) violation with respect to
Benner's conversation with Shinabery; Boroffs state-
ment to Macklin concerning a 25-cent-per-hour raise, as
to which I credit Boroff's explanation that it concerned a
possible transfer of Macklin to a better job to fill a future
vacancy and was not linked to any discussion about the
Union; Foreman Sonya's crude attempt at humor in stat-
ing that there was a $100 bonus to anyone that ran over
a union official in the road; and the alleged comment by
Sonya to Brown, overheard by Daniels, that faulty in-
spection by Turnwald offered an opportunity to discharge
her. Likewise not established is the allegation that Per-
sonnel Director Woodrow, in a speech to employees on
October 6, threatened loss of employment if the Union
succeeded in organizing the employees, since the only
evidence regarding this is an outline for the speech
prepared by Woodrow which contains nothing coercive.12
Accordingly these allegations are dismissed.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent found to constitute
unfair labor practices as set forth in section III, above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the
Respondent described 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 burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in un-
fair labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act, I shall recommend that the Respondent cease
and desist therefrom and take appropriate affirmative ac-
tion in order to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Since I have found that the Respondent discriminatori-
ly discharged Patricia Blue on June 18, 1966, I shall
recommend that the Respondent offer her immediate and
full reinstatement to her former or substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or
other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any
loss of earnings she may have suffered from the date of
the discriminatory discharge to the date the Respondent
offers her reinstatement. The backpay shall be computed
in accordance with the formula approved in F. W. Wool-
worth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest at the rate
of 6 percent per annum, as provided in Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. I shall also recommend
that the Respondent preserve and, upon request, make
available to the Board, payroll and other records to
facilitate the computation of backpay due.
As the unfair labor practices committed by the Re-
spondent are of a character striking at the root of em-
ployee rights safeguarded by the Act, I shall recommend
that the Respondent cease and desist from infringing in
any manner upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
VI. REPORT ON OBJECTIONS
79
The objections to the election encompass all of the con-
duct of the Respondent found in section III, B, above, to
constitute violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. To that
extent, therefore, I find the objections to have merit and
I shall accordingly recommend that the election held on
October 14, 1966, be set aside and that the Regional
Director conduct a new election at such time as he deems
appropriate.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
upon the entire record in these proceedings, I make the
following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Teleflex Industrial Products, Inc., is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
2. International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act by discharging Patricia Blue on June 18, 1966.
4. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
by interrogating employees concerning their union sym-
pathies and attitudes, by threatening loss of employment
and other job reprisals if the Union were selected as bar-
gaining representative, by promising a profit-sharing plan
and wage increases if the Union were rejected, and by en-
gaging in surveillance of a meeting of the Union.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. In other respects alleged in the complaint in Case
8-CA-4423,, the Respondent has not engaged in unfair
labor practices.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclu-
sions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, it is
recommended that the Respondent, Teleflex Industrial
Products, Inc., Van Wert, Ohio, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in or activities on behalf
of International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by dis-
criminatorily discharging any of its employees or other-
wise discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of em-
ployment or any term or condition of employment.
(b) Coercively interrogating employees concerning
their union sympathies and attitudes, threatening loss of
employment or other job reprisals if they select the Union
as bargaining representative, promising a profit-sharing
plan and wage increases if they reject the Union, engaging
in surveillance of union meetings or union activities of
employees, or in any other manner interfering with,
12 At the conclusion of the Ganeral Counsel's case I granted Respond-
ent's motion to dismiss an allegation that Horasan's speech of June 3
contained a similar threat, as no such evidence had been adduced.
80 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
restraining , or coercing its employees in the exercise of APPENDIX
their right to self-organization, to form labor organizes
tions, to join or assist the above-mentioned Union or any NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
other labor organization, to bargain collectively 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 and all such activities, except to the extent that
such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of em
ployment, as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Patricia Blue immediate and full reinstate-
ment to her former or substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and
privileges, and make her whole in the manner set forth
above in the section entitled "The Remedy" for any loss
of earnings suffered by reason of the discrimination
against her.
(b) Notify the said Patricia Blue if presently serving in
the Armed Forces of the United States of her right to full
reinstatement upon application in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Train-
ing and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the
Armed Forces.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents , for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary and pertinent to compute the amount
of backpay due.
(d) Post at its place of business in Van Wert, Ohio, co-
pies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."13 Copies
of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director
for Region 8, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of the Respondent, shall be posted illy
mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to its employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.14
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the election held
October 14, 1966, in Case 8-RC-6480, be set aside, and
that a new election be held at such time as the Regional
Director deems appropriate.
11 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice. In the further
event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
14 In the event that this Recommended Order is 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 Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith."
0 0 0 1 2
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex-
aminer 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 em-
ployees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activi-
ties on behalf of International Union, United Au-
tomobile , Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization , by discriminatorily discharging any of
our employees , or by discriminating in any other
manner in regard to our employees ' hire or tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employ-
ment.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our em-
ployees concerning their union sympathies and at-
titudes, threaten loss of employment or other job
reprisals if they select the Union as bargaining
representative , promise a profit-sharing plan or wage
increases if they reject the Union , or engage in sur-
veillance of union meetings or union activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of
their right to self-organization , to form labor or-
ganizations , to join or assist the above-mentioned
Union or any other labor organization , to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own
choosing , and to engage in other concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mu-
tual aid or protection , or to refrain from any and all
such activities , except to the extent that such right
may be affected by an agreement requiring member-
ship in a labor organization as a condition of employ-
ment, as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer to Patricia Blue immediate and full
reinstatement to her former or substantially
equivalent position , without prejudice to her seniori-
ty or other rights and privileges, and make her whole
for any loss of earnings she may have suffered as a
result of the discrimination against her.
TELEFLEX INDUSTRIAL
PRODUCTS, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE: We will notify the above-named employee if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States of her right to full reinstatement upon application
in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting, and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 720 Bulkley
Building , 1501 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44115,
Telephone 621-4465.