The Deutsch Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 24, 1969

178 N.L.R.B. 616 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Deutsch Company, Metal Components Division
and Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding
Workers of America, AFL-CIO
The Deutsch Company, Metal Components Division
and Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding
Workers of America , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases
21-CA-8064 and 21-RC-10863
September 24, 1969
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, ANL)ZAGORIA
On February 5, 1969, Trial Examiner David F.
Doyle issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding. finding that Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging 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. The
Trial Examiner further found that the Respondent
had not engaged in certain other unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint. The Trial
Examiner also found merit in certain objections to
the election in Case 21-RC-10863 and recommended
that the election he set aside and a new election be
directed. Thereafter. the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting
brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 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 recommendations of the
Trial Examiner except as modified below.'
1. In adopting the Trial Examiner's finding that
Respondent's letter of May 20, 1968, soliciting its
employees to revoke their union authorization cards
violated Section 8(a)(1). we do not rely on the
rationale that it was unlawful because it was
patently intended to create a false impression of
'The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently denied enforcement
of the Board's Order in another Deutsch Co case (165 NLRB No 5) on
the ground that the violations were "so trivia ! that we wnclude the
purposes of the Act would not be served by enforcement of the Board's
proposed order ' N L R B v Deutsch Co . 408 E 2d 684 (C A 9),
rehearing denied August 4, 1969 Although we respectfully disagree with
the court s conclusion that the unfair labor practices in the earlier case
were "trivial ," We are satisfied that continuation of these same unfair
labor practices at another plant of the same company takes them
completely out of the realm of trivia, and patently requires issuance of a
cease and desist order and the posting of an appropriate notice in order to
effectuate the policies of the Act
coercion which would prejudice the Union's chances
in the election. Rather, we conclude that because it
solicited employees to revoke their authorization
cards, the letter violates Section 8(a)(1) and
warrants setting the election aside.
2 The Trial Examiner found that the wage
increase of August 5, 1968, was intended to affect
the results of the election, violated Section 8(a)(1),
and constituted a basis for setting the election aside.
In reaching this conclusion he relied on testimony of
Philip Holzman, Respondent's president, that he
had decided to act on what was best for the
company and not on "...whether or not this was
considered the right thing to do because there was a
union knocking at our gate . . " The Trial
Examiner viewed this as an admission that Holzman
was not concerned with whether it was the right
thing to do ". . with due regard given to the duties
of employers and the rights of employees under the
Act." We do not agree, as Holzman' s statement is
in fact a valid exposition of an employer's duty
when faced with an organizing campaign. In such
circumstances an employer is required to act as it
would normally, absent the presence of the union.
Had the Respondent withheld a wage increase it
would have granted but for the union, it would have
violated the Act.'- In both 1966 and 1967
Respondent had increased wage rate ranges; the
Respondent's employee handbook states that it is
company policy to maintain wages as high as, or
higher than, other companies in the industry, and
Respondent's president testified that a decision had
been made early in 1968 to watch trends in the
industry and to maintain a competitive position. The
record establishes that other employers in the
aerospace industry in the same locality had just
agreed, during contract negotiations, to grant
substantial increases and the General Counsel has
failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence
that this wage increase by the Respondent was
motivated by union animus rather than by valid
business considerations. Accordingly. we shall
dismiss this allegation of the complaint and overrule
the objection.
3. Apart from the unfair labor practices. it is
clear, and we find. that the Respondent interfered
with the election by soliciting employee withdrawals
from the Union. We note, however, that the Trial
Examiner inadvertently failed to rule upon
Respondent's letter of August 5, 1968, which the
Regional Director for Region 21 in his Report on
Objections in Case 21-RC-10863 found constituted
conduct interfering with the results of the election.
The Respondent excepted to this finding.
Considering this letter in the context of the record
as a whole, we conclude, in agreement with the
Regional Director for Region 21, that the tone of
the letter vas calculated to convince employees that
selection of the Union would he futile. In particular,
'See McCormick Longmeadow Stone Co . 158 NLRB 1237
178 NLRB No. 9-5
THE DEUTSCH CO.
We regard the following as virtually tantamount to
an anticipatory refusal to bargain:
What can I gain by voting for the union?
The answer is nothing.
The Union can get nothing for you that the
company is not willing to give in the first place.
Accordingly, we find that Respondent's letter of
August 5, 1968, constituted additional conduct
warranting setting the election aside.
4. Finally, we take note of Respondent's
contention that the Charging Party herein waived its
right to object to the election on the basis of
conduct which was the subject of an unfair labor
practice proceeding pending before the Board at the
time the Charging Party executed its request to
proceed with the election on May 24, 1968. A
"request to proceed" does not constitute a waiver of
a union's right to urge postpetition unfair labor
practices as conduct affecting the results of an
election. Lloyd A Fry Roofing Co., Inc., 142
NLRB 673 at 681; The Great Atlantic & Pacific
Tea Company, 101 NLRB 1118 at 1120-21.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
modified below, and orders that Respondent, The
Deutsch Company, Metal Components Division,
Los Angeles, California, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order,
as modified herein.
1. Delete from paragraph 1(a) of the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order that part which
reads:
"granting an invalid wage increase to influence
employees against assisting, joining or voting for the
Union "
2. Delete from paragraph 1(b) of the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order that part which
reads "in any other manner" and substitute "In any
like or related manner."
3. Delete from the notice that part of the second
indented paragraph which reads "'in any manner"
and substitute therefor "in any like or related
manner."
4. Delete from the notice attached to the Trial
Examiner's Decision that part of the first indented
paragraph which reads:
(4) granting an invalid wage increase to
influence employees not to assist, join or vote for
the above named Union."
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held on
August 22, 1968. among the Respondent's
employees be, and it hereby is, set aside, and that
Case 21-RC-10863 be remanded to the Regional
Director for Region 21 for the purposes of
conducting a new election at such time as he deems
617
that circumstances permit the free choice of a
bargaining representative.
[Direction of Second Election3omitted from publication
' 156 NLRB 1236, N L R B. v Wyman-Gordon Company, 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 21 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 extension of time to file extraordinary circumstances Failure
to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the
election whenever proper objections are filed
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
DAVID F, DOYLE, Trial Examiner: This proceeding, with
the parties represented by the counsel named above, was
heard by the Trial Examiner in Los Angeles, California,
on September 4-6, 1968, on complaint of the General
Counsel and answer of the Respondent. The issues
litigated were whether the Respondent had violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by certain conduct of its
officers and supervisors.' The complaint in this proceeding
was issued on June 11, and is based on a charge filed by
an officer of the Union on April 24, and a first amended
charge filed on May 6.1 The complaint alleged in
substance that the Company (1) had engaged in various
acts of intimidation, restraint, and coercion of its
employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and
(2) had discriminatorily transferred one employee, Ignacio
Vasquez, because of his activity on behalf of the Union in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. In its duly filed
answer, the Company denied the commission of any
unfair labor practices.
On September 4, the proceeding came on regularly to
be heard by the Trial Examiner. At the hearing all parties
were represented, were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to
introduce evidence bearing on the issues, to argue the
issues orally upon the record and to file briefs and
proposed findings.
At the time of the hearing, certain objections to the
conduct of election filed by the Union were pending before
the Board in representation Case 21-RC-10863. These
objections arose from an election involving the parties and
were of a nature similar to the above-mentioned unfair
labor practices. On November 5, the Board remanded
these objections to the Regional Director for disposition
after hearing, and the Regional Director in turn referred
the objections for hearing by the Trial Examiner.
Thereafter, pursuant to appropriate motions and order the
record of the hearing was reopened and such additional
testimony was received as to the objections as counsel
offered and the Trial Examiner deemed admissible. The
reopened hearing was held on December 3 with the same
counsel of record participating Thereafter, all parties
were afforded an opportunity to file additional briefs
which have been considered.
Upon the entire record of the case and upon my
observation of the witnesses , I make the following-
'In this decision , the Deutsch Company, Metal Components Division, is
referred to as the Respondent or the Company , Industrial Union of
Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of America, AFL-CIO, as the Union, the
National Labor Relation-, Board, as the Board; the General Counsel of the
Board and his representatives at the hearing as the General Counsel, and
the Labor Management Relations Act, as amended , as the Act
'All dates in this Decision are in the year 1968 unless specified
otherwise
618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS Of, FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OPI.RATIONS OF THE COMPANY
Upon the pleadings and stipulations of the parties, it is
found that the Company is a California corporation with
a plant located in Los Angeles, California , where the
Company engages in the manufacture and sale of parts
and components in the aerospace industry . In the normal
course and conduct of its operations , the Company
annually sells and ships from its Los Angeles plant, goods
valued in excess of S50,000 , directly to points located
outside the State of California . The Company also
purchases annually and causes to be transported to its Los
Angeles plant from points located outside the State of
California material and supplies valued in excess of
$50,000.
It is found , therefore , that the Company is an employer
engaged in commerce and in a business affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
At the hearing it was stipulated , and I find , that Philip
E. Holzman, Peter D . ( Pete) Hanly, and Howard (Pat)
Whalen are agents of the Company and at all times
relevant hereto were supervisors within the meaning of the
Act.`
The complaint alleged that John Block , John Mancilla.
and Harry Saterbo are also agents of the Company and
supervisors within the meaning of the Act but the
Company denied the supervisory status of these
individuals claiming that they are "leadmen" only This is
one of the issues to he decided in this proceeding,
inasmuch as the General Counsel claims that these three
men also engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
If. THE LABOR ORGA' IZ&TiON INVOLVED
It is found upon the pleadings and a stipulation of the
parties at the hearing that the Union is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
Iii. rHE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A The Issues
It is undisputed that in the spring of 1968, particularly
in March. the Union began an organizing campaign in the
Company's Los Angeles plant The complaint alleged that
in the course of following weeks the Company committed
unfair labor practices as follows: (1) It discriminatorily
transferred on April 1. employee Ignacio R. Vasquez to
the day shift because of his activity on behalf of the
Union: (2) by various supervisory officials threatened
employees with the closing of the plant it the Union
succeeded in its efforts or if the employees joined or
supported the Union: (3) by various supervisory officials
interrogated employees concerning their union affiliation
and activities. (4) solicited employees to revoke their
union authorization cards. (5) invoked an invalid
no-solicitation rule to hamper the organ17ational efforts of
the Union: (6) granted a wage increase to influence
employees against choosing to be represented by the
Union and to influence the vote of employees in a
Board-conducted election which was pending at the time,
and (7) oy various officials threatened employees with
'In the testimony the employees frequently referred to these supervisors
as "Pete" and "Pat '
economic reprisals or detriments if they voted for the
Union.
In its duly tiled answer the Company generally denied
the commission of unfair labor practices and as
affirmative defenses stated that the job transfer effected
by the Company was prompted by valid business
considerations and not because of any union or protected
activities on the part of any employee. As a second
affirmative defense the Company alleged that any
restriction imposed by the Company upon solicitation on
behalf of the Union was motivated solely by
considerations of security , safety, cleanliness and
production efficiency, and not because any of the
employees engaged in union activities As a third
affirmative defense the Company asserted that any
communications between the Company and its employees
were motivated to provide a fair, free and uncoerced
judgment by the employees in regard to the choice of a
bargaining representative in the election because the
employees were subject to "harassment, threats, coercion
and intimidation by the Union and its agents."
It should be noted that the objections to the conduct of
election referred to previously are in general a repetition
of some of the allegations of unfair labor practices, and
the Company's contentions on the objections are similar
in content to its defenses presented in the unfair labor
practice aspect of the case. A consideration of all the
evidence and a resolution of the issues of unfair labor
practices will for all practical purposes decide the issues
presented by the objections.
As the reader must have noted there are a large number
of issues thus presented. If this decision is to have clarity,
the unfair labor practices of different kinds and types
must he separated and classified under appropriate
headings. This will be done, but the Trial Examiner
desires that it be understood that in the ultimate decision
as to each unfair labor practice, the Trial Examiner has
scrutinized the evidence in regard to that specific unfair
labor practice and given due consideration to all of the
evidence presented. Any compartmentalization which
appears in this decision is only for the purpose of
organizing the presentation of the evidence. Since there is
a multiplicity of issues, reason requires that some be
treated more shortly than others if this decision is to be
kept within reasonable length. The Trial Examiner also
wishes it understood that any disparity in length of
treatment does not betoken that the specific issue received
less than his full consideration
B The Alleged Discriminatory Discharge of Ignacio
Vasquez
It is undisputed that Ignacio Vasquez and Luis Palacios
are both employed by the Company as inspectors and
both were employed on the night shift when the union
organization campaign began earn in March. It is
undisputed that on a night in the first week of March,
while both men were on duty , that they had an angry
argument . From the testimony of all concerned, it is clear
that Vasquez was a union adherent and Palacios had
refused to sign an authorization card for the Union
According to both Vasquez and Palacios at the end of the
shift they went to the parking lot and both men took off
their shirts preparatory to engaging in a listfight. Cooler
heads among the crowd which gathered finally prevailed
and the men went their separate ways without any blows
being struck , but without their difference being settled
THE DEUTSCH CO. 619
Vasquez called as a witness by the General Counsel
testified that on the next shift after the near fight, he was
told by his foreman Alverez to report to Pete Hanly,
Personnel Director for the Company. When Vasquez
talked to Ilanly in his office, Hanly said that he had
heard that Vasquez had a near fistfight with Palacios
because Vasquez wanted to beat Palactos up, because
Palacios had refused to sign a union card. Vasquez denied
the truth of that statement. Then Hanly said that he had
heard that Vasquez was a troublemaker and that he was
going to transfer Vasquez to the day shift. Then Hanly
asked Vasquez what he thought about the Union and
Vasquez told him that he was neither for or against it.
Vasquez then told Ilanly that he had engaged in a
personal argument with Palacios off-and-on for over 6
months, and that the cause of the near fight was a
"personal" matter between the two men.
Luis Palacios testified that some of the employees
talked to him about the Union in the month of March.
He would not sign a card for the Union and later he was
told that Vasquez had said that he was a homosexual.
Palacios went to Vasquez and asked Vasquez if he had
said that he was a homosexual. Vasquez said that he had
said it, and that it was true. Palacios said that he would
wait for Vasquez outside the plant at quitting time and
they would settle the matter by fighting. When they got
outside at the end of their shift, Vasquez took off his shirt
and said he was ready to fight Palacios did likewise, but
some of the employees pointed out that they were on
company property and the men argued with each other
about whether they would be in trouble for fighting on
company property. After some discussion, they left
without fighting
On the next day, Palacios told his foreman about the
incident, saying that he didn't want to have any more
trouble on the job with Vasquez, and that if he was going
to have such trouble that he would look elsewhere for
employment
On the next night, he had a talk with Hanly, Director
of Personnel, and told Hanly that he could not understand
why Vasquez was making trouble for him. In the course
of his testimony, Palacios said that Vasquez had not
talked to him personally about the Union but he had
heard Vasquez talking to other people about the Union
Peter D Hanly, Personnel Director for the Company,
testified that the day after the Vasquez-Palactos incident,
Alverez, one of the foremen, reported to him that Vasquez
and Palactos had gotten into an argument on the night
shift and that they had very nearly come to blows in the
parking lot after the shift. He sent for Vasquez and
informed Vasquez that he had heard about the altercation
with Palactos He asked Vasquez what it was about and
Vasquez replied that it was a personal matter between him
and Palacios. Hanly then told Vasquez that Palactos said
that Vasquez had been bothering him because he would
not sign a union card. Vasquez replied that there was no
truth in that charge. Hanly then told Vasquez that he
would have to separate the two men. He said that both
were good inspectors and he didn't want to lose either one
but he could not have any fights either on or after the
shift and that under the circumstances he had decided to
transfer Vasquez to the day shift. Vasquez said that was
all right with him, as he was going to request a transfer to
the day shift anyway.
It is undisputed that among the employees the day shift
is considered a more desirable job than the night shift,
and because of that fact, the men on the night shut
receive a differential of 10 cents per hour in pay.
lianly said that Vasquez did not complain to him about
his loss of the 10-cent differential in pay. However. in
June, while Hanly was going through the plant, Vasquez
asked Hanly for an opportunity to speak to him privately.
Hanly arranged for Vasquez to come to his office. When
the two men were alone, Vasquez told him that Albert
Matas, one of the most vigorous of the union adherents,
had been pestering him continuously to get him to sign a
complaint against the Company for being transferred.
Hanly told Vasquez to tell Matas "very firmly" that he
did not want to sign any complaint. Ilanly advised
Vasquez that if he did that, he felt sure that Matas would
leave Vasquez alone. Vasquez also told IIanly that at the
union meetings the men drank an awful lot of beer and
that on one night, when he had been drinking quite a bit,
he had signed quite a few papers, of whose significance he
was not aware
Hanle testified further that he tried to effect some sort
of amicable arrangement between the two men. Palacios
was willing to forgive and forget. but Vasquez was
adamant in his position. Since the name calling by
Vasquez was the start of the incident and he seemed to be
the more belligerent of the two. Hanle decided that it
would he proper for him to transfer Vasquez rather than
Palacios. Ilanly stated that the transfer was effected
merely to keep peace between these two employees and
for no other reason. As to this incident Hanly testified in
a forthright and candid manner. I credit his testimony
fully. Since both Palacios and Vasquez say the incident
was "personal" in nature, started by name calling, I
conclude that the transfer of' Vasquez was not
discriminatory. Therefore, this allegation of the complaint
is dismissed because of insufficient evidence.
C. The Alleged Interrogation of Rodriguez by
Holzman , President of the C'ompani' , and by Hanlv
and Whalen
Employee Ray Rodriguez, one of the leaders of the
Union. testified that several supervisors questioned him
about his union affiliation and talked to him about the
Union.
Rodriguez testified that in the middle of March on one
occasion Ilanly told him that he had heard there was
going to be a union meeting and asked Rodriguez if
employees were being paid money for signing union cards.
Rodriguez denied that anyone was being paid any money.
Then Hanly told Rodriguez it was against company rules
to solicit anything at any time on company property.
Also, according to Rodriguez, in March, Whalen, one of
the foremen, told him to report to Hanly's office When
lie talked to Hanly, the latter questioned him about
employee problems Rodriguez told him that the
employees were dissatisfied with the insurance plan which
the Company had and with the amount of wages they
were paid. Hanly replied there was nothing he could do
about the money, but that the Company was working on
an improvement in the insurance plan. According to
Rodriguez, at this time Hanly also told him that he knew
how many cards the Union had gathered from the
employees and that he (Hanly) knew that Rodriguez was
one of the union organizers passing out union cards.
Rodriguez also testified that during the month of
March, Holzman, president of the Company, summoned
Rodriguez into his office and talked to him about the
profit-sharing arrangement of the Company and
Rodriguez' retirement rights On this occasion, Holzman
told Rodriguez that if the Union ever got in, Alex
620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Deutsch, owner of the Company, would close down the
plant.
Rodriguez also stated that around April 1, Foreman
Whalen asked him if he had signed a union card to which
Rodriguez replied in the affirmative.
Hanly, in the course of his testimony, stated that on an
occasion during a lunchbreak in the month of March, he
had walked over to Rodriguez and employee Matas and
said to them, "Where is the union meeting?" They replied
that there was no union meeting. Hanly then told them
that he had been informed that they were getting $25 per
union card that was signed, and asked if this was true.
Matas replied that it was not true and if it were he would
be able to retire at that time. Hanly testified that he had
no intention of interrogating these employees in this
conversation. He explained it was all said in a jesting,
joking manner on both sides. Hanly testified that at this
time he told the employees they could not solicit the
signing of union authorization cards on company
property, during working time.
Hanly also testified that in mid-March he asked
Rodriguez what the major gripes in the plant were.
Rodriguez said that the employees were dissatisfied with
many things but particularly with the insurance plan and
with the wages. Hanly told him that the Company was in
the process of reviewing the insurance plan but that he
couldn't do anything about the money at that time. Hanly
denied that he said that he knew Rodriguez was an
organizer for the Union or had been passing out cards.
Hanly also denied that he asked Rodriguez how many
cards he had.
Foreman Pat Whalen testified that Rodriguez worked
in his department and that he talked to Rodriguez on
many occasions in the course of the day. Whalen said that
he didn't know anything about the Union's organizational
activity or Rodriguez' part in any of it and that he never
discussed the Union or authorization cards with
Rodriguez at any time. Whalen also denied that he ever
had any conversations with Matas in which Whalen
brought up the subject of the Union. Whalen said that on
one occasion he noticed that many of the machinists in his
department were leaving their machines and gathering in
little knots, talking. He told these men and Matas, who
was the worst offender, to stay on their machines and he
asked Matas why there was so much roaming around and
talking. Matas said that a man had told him that he could
go around and talk like that and he couldn't be fired for
talking. Whalen asked Matas if this was supposed to be
the rule, while he was supposed to be operating his
machine and when the Company had some work for him
to do. Matas said no, that he supposed under those
circumstances he was supposed to be working. Whalen
then told him to get working.
Philip E. Holzman, president of the Company, testified
that in approximately mid-March he was informed that
Rodriguez wished to talk to him in his office about the
profit-sharing arrangement of the Company and
Rodriguez' retirement plans. He agreed to talk to
Rodriguez. When the men met, Rodriguez said that he
was thinking of leaving the Company and wanted to know
how much he would receive under the plan as his
separation pay. Holzman told Rodriguez that he had
accumulated certain rights under the plan and pointed out
to him that he would be best served under the plan by not
leaving the Company until the month of August, when he
would complete an additional stage in the plan and have a
larger separation pay. Holzman explained that he thought
that by August, Rodriguez might change his mind about
leaving the Company. Holzman denied that in the course
of this conversation there was any mention of the Union
and Holzman denied that he ever said that Alex Deutsch
would close the plant if the Union came in.
Rodriguez was one of the leading adherents of the
Union among the employees and he impressed the Trial
Examiner as a witness prone to slant or stretch his
testimony in favor of the Union. In my judgment his
testimony can be accepted only after careful scrutiny. On
reviewing all this testimony, I find that Hanly violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by his "jesting" conversation
with Rodriguez. Hanly admitted this questioning, and
although it might have been "jesting" to Hanly, it was
apparently considered nonjocular by Rodriguez. I do not
accept Hanly's explanation of the innocence of this
conversation.
It is also found that Hanly gave a mistakenly restrictive
statement of the Company's nonsolicitation rule, when he
told Rodriguez that no solicitation could be engaged in,
on company property at any time.
I do not credit Rodriguez' testimony that Hanly told
Rodriguez that he knew Rodriguez was an organizer of
employees, passed out cards and that Hanly knew how
many cards the Union had obtained. On these points, I
credit Hanly's testimony and reject that of Rodriguez.
As to the Holzman-Rodriguez conversation in
Holzman's office, I accept the testimony of Holzman. I
also accept the testimony of Whalen and reject the
testimony of Rodriguez. These findings are based entirely
on the demeanor of the witnesses and the compatibility of
the testimony of each with the totality of the evidence.
D. The Supervisory Status of Block, Mancilla, and
Saterbo, and Other Leadmen
The General Counsel contends that these three
employees are supervisors under the Act and that some of
their conduct amounts to violations of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act. The Company contends that these men are
leadmen, rank-and-file employees, and that the Company
is not responsible for anything they may have said to
fellow employees.
There is not much conflict in the evidence concerning
the duties of these three individuals. It is undisputed that
there are approximately nine departments in the plant,
each of which is headed by a foreman who has that title.
The number of employees under each foreman varies from
12 to 30 employees. In each department there is one or
more senior employees with the job classification of
"leadman" whose primary job is to assist in training new
and less skilled employees. When these leadmen are not
engaged in training, they themselves perform the standard
operations of the department and they spend the majority
of their time in actual production work or in setting up
machines or assisting others in the setting up of their
machines. Only on occasions when the foreman is out of
the department, do these men engage in directing other
employees. It is undisputed that the only persons who can
discipline employees, process grievances, or authorize
changes in regular work hours are the foremen. On some
occasions, the leadmen may refer matters concerning the
competence or proficiency of employees to the foreman
for the foreman 's decision . The foremen regularly attend
meetings of management personnel but the leadmen do
not. Foremen are paid at the highest rate of pay in the
department and the leadmen are paid a rate midway
between that of the foremen and the rank-and-file
employees. Foremen usually work one hour into the
THE DEUTSCH CO.
second shift while leadmen work only one-half hour into
the second shift. This is done to give some continuity to
the work in process.
In the course of his testimony, employee Matas testified
that Saterbo had the power to hire, fire and otherwise
affect other employees' tenure of employment, but this
was directly contradicted by Hanly who stated that
Saterbo had no such supervisory authority. Rodriguez
testified that occasionally when Whalen was out of the
department, Saterbo assigned work to the men and
sometimes when Whalen was present Saterbo directed the
men to various machines and shifted them about.
Rodriguez said that occasionally he received a gate pass
from Saterbo, if he wanted to leave the plant early. While
it seems established that Saterho did in fact on occasion
instruct employees as to which machine each was to work,
it is equally clear that such "assignments " were made
pursuant to a detailed written list which was supplied to
Saterbo by Whalen, the foreman Saterbo himself, in his
testimony, denied that he had authority to discipline the
men and this seems to be supported by the testimony of
Matas and Rodriquez, who said that Saterbo usually told
Whalen, about what the employee had done meriting
correction, and Whalen later might correct the employee.
Saterbo testified that he did not know if and when an
employee was given a raise In short, the principal duty of
these men seems to be that they do work that is too
difficult for the new or less skilled employees, and that
they receive daily instructions as to the duties of
themselves and the other men for the shift From these
lists they assign work to the men and report employee
deficiencies or incompetence or misconduct to the
foreman Occasionally they are asked about the
performance of employees and give their opinions of the
men's competence, but their opinions, when asked may or
may not be accepted by the foremen and higher
management
Upon all the evidence I find that the General Counsel
has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence
that these three employees, Block. Mantilla, and Saterbo,
classified as "leadmen" by the Company and paid as such
are supervisors as defined in the Act It appears that they
exercise no supervisory authority to hire, fire or discipline,
or to recommend such action, or to responsibly direct
other employees. This finding extends to the other
leadmen who voted by challenged ballot in the election of
August 22.
E The Filing of the Representation Petition and the
Scheduled Election
It is undisputed that on May 13, the Union filed a
petition for certification of representative in Case
21-RC-10863. On July 25, the Board issued a Decision
and Direction of Election which directed that an election
by secret ballot be conducted by the Regional Office of
the Board in a unit of employees described as follows.
All production, maintenance , shipping, receiving,
production control, and inspection employees and
leadmen employed by the Employer at its 14800 South
Figueroa Street. Los Angeles, California, plant:
excluding all office clerical employees, professional
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act
Pursuant to the Decision and Direction of Election
aforesaid, the Regional Director, Region 21 (Los Angeles,
California) on July 25, conducted an election by secret
ballot in the representation proceeding.
The results of the election were as follows.
Approximate number of eligible voters 273
Void ballots 3
Votes cast for petitioner (Union) 54
Votes cast against participating labor
organization 167
Valid votes counted 221
Challenged votes 17
Valid votes counted plus challenged ballots 238
621
On August 29, the Union tiled timely objections to the
election The Regional Director conducted the usual
investigation as to the objections and on September 26,
filed his report on objections with the Board. Thereafter,
on November 5, the Board issued an order directing that
the representation proceeding including the objections to
conduct of the election be remanded to the Regional
Director for consolidation with Case 21-CA-8064 in order
that a resolution of the issues raised by the objections
could be found by the Trial Examiner on the basis of
sworn testimony in this proceeding.
F. The Wage Increases Given to Employees on July
31, Effective August 5
It is undisputed that on July 31, the Company by a
letter to each employee announced that to continue the
Company's policy "to pay wages equal to or better than
wages for like or similar work in our industry and area,"
that "effective August 5, there will he a general increase
in wages for all of our hourly paid factory employees "'
The letter did not specify the amount of the raise for each
employee, but employees Matas, Zagala, and Vasquez
testified that effective August 5, in accordance with the
letter, they received an increase in wages from $2.70 to
$2.92 per hour. They also testified. while there had been
instances of' wages being raised in the past, there had been
no prior instance when a wage increase was given
generally to all employees at the same time Also all
former raises had been limited to 10 cents per hour.
The letter of July 31, over the signature of Philip E.
Holzman, president of the Company, stated that the wage
increase was given for the purpose of maintaining equality
of wages with other companies in the aerospace industry.
When Holzman was on the witness stand, he testified to
the same effect, but when he was asked if he realized that
at the time the raise was given. July 31, six days after the
Decision and Direction of Election, he was aware of the
pendency of the election, Holzman admitted that he was
aware of that fact. The election was scheduled for August
22
G. The Company s Letter to Employees Concerning
the Revocation of Authorization Cards Given by
Employees to the Union
It is likewise undisputed that on May 20, the Company
sent to each of its employees the following letter.
To Deutsch MCD Employees:
The union organizers are still asking for cards and
you may expect these organizers to step up the
campaign and put pressure on you to sign cards
Why is it that they are still trying to get cards?
One of the reasons is that they are trying to get
enough cards so that they can force you to recognize
'Emphasis supplied by Trial Examiner
622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
them without an election and thus prevent you from
deciding your future in a secret election.
Another reason is that they are not telling the truth
in how many cards they really have and if they don't
have enough, even the National Labor Relations Board
will tell them to forget it.
Remember, you have the right to be free of fear,
coercion or threat and our company will always protect
these rights.
If anyone threatens or intimidates you, either at
work or at your home, in any way, please report it to
me or Pete Hanly and we will take the necessary action
to protect your freedom.
For those of you who have signed a union
authorization card because you either
1. were misinformed of your right not to sign a
card if you so desired, or
2. were coerced and forced to sign a card, or
3. were intimidated or threatened with violence or
loss of your job if the union got in, or
4. were told to sign a card to be a "right guy" or
5. believe someone else signed your name to a
card,
you can withdraw your authorization to the union by
signing the enclosed de-authorization card and mailing
it to the National Labor Relations Board.
This card is being sent to you at your home so you
can make your decision without fear, coercion, threat
or promise of any kind. Discuss it with your family.
In my opinion the relationship as it presently exists
at Deutsch is much better than the promises being
made by these union organizers which everyone knows
will not be kept.
To those of you who support my position and
continue to do so, and have not signed; a card - many
thanks.
Yours very truly,
/s/ Philip E. Holzman
Philip E. Holzman
President
Attached to this letter was a card which reads as follows:
Re: Deutsch Metal Components Division
I hereby revoke my card authorizing the Shipbuilders
Union to represent me.
Employees Name
Date
The card which the employee could fill out, if he so
desired, was addressed to the National Labor Relations
Board, Regional Office, Los Angeles, California.
Peter D. Hanly, personnel director of the Company,
testified that for some weeks prior to May 20, he had
received reports from employees that union adherents and
organizers were coercing them into signing union
authorization cards and in some cases threatening them
with reprisals when the employees signified that they did
not desire to join the Union. When he heard of these
pressure tactics, Hanly conferred with the labor relations
consultant for the Company who advised him that, if the
employees were in fact being coerced, that he could send
them a card allowing them to rescind their authorization
cards by notifying the Regional Office in this manner. At
that point the Trial Examiner ruled that he would not
permit counsel for the Company to have Hanly testify to
"reports" of incidents of so-called coercion, unless the
employees allegedly coerced testified first-hand to each
incident.
In support of Hanly's assertion of coercion, the
Respondent offered the testimony of various employees.
One of these employees was Palacios, whose testimony
has previously been recounted. Palacios had told Hanly
that Vasquez had challenged him because he would not
sign the union card
Employee Aldo Montoto testified that Charles West, an
officer of the Union, came to his home one evening in the
middle of March after dark. Montoto said he lives with
his mother, his sister and his grandmother Montoto said
that on this occasion West tried to persuade him to sign a
card, but he refused to sign, principally because of the fact
that at his request the Company had given his mother a
job at a time when she needed one badly. On the
following day, another employee by the name of Raoul
Sans asked him when he was going to sign a card and said
that eventually he would have to sign one, so he might as
well do it then. Sans also said that if he didn't sign up
then, that when the Union came in the plant Montoto
wouldn't have a job.
Counsel for the Company offered to prove by Armando
DeCastro, who runs a janitorial service, that some of his
employees were mistaken for employees of the Company
by union adherents and organizers and that one of them,
Carlos Badilla by name, was harassed by some union
adherents. This incident was reported to Hanly Employee
Rudy Resch told Hanly that on one occasion he had been
approached by employee Diaz and another employee as he
drove into the parking lot of the plant. Resch said that he
was asked to sign a union authorization card and when he
said, "no," he was told that he had better sign it. When
he refused to sign on a second request, he was told by one
of the men that, "He had better not show up for work "
Hanly testified that as a result of having been informed of
these incidents by these employees that he decided that the
Company should send out the letter of May 20 with the
form to rescind authorization cards so that any employee
so coerced or harassed could disclaim his authorization
card.
At the resumed hearing on December 3, the attention
of all parties was principally concerned with the objections
to the conduct of election with main interest focused on
the pay raise given unilaterally by the Company effective
August 5. At the hearing, President Philip E. Holzman
and Personnel Director Peter D. Hanly again testified.
Counsel for the Company proffered in evidence through
Holzman many pages of Los Angeles newspapers for late
July and early August which had many articles about the
labor negotiations between employees and management in
the aerospace industry in the Los Angeles area. Counsel
for the Company contended that these newspaper articles
were read by Holzman and influenced him to make the
decision to grant the pay raise. Counsel for the General
Counsel objected that these newspaper pages were
irrelevant to the issue. The Trial Examiner ruled that the
newspaper articles were inadmissible, because they seemed
to be too remote to the issue, and added nothing to
Holzman's previous testimony that he was conversant with
all the current negotiations in the aerospace industry and
the general economic situation prevailing at the time, and
that these influenced him to give the raise effective August
5 These newspaper exhibits were ordered by the Trial
Examiner to be placed in a file of rejected exhibits. (Resp.
Exh. 6 for identification - rejected.)
In the course of his testimony when recalled, Holzman
testified that the wage increase at "the low end of the
unskilled was 15 cents; the maximum of 35 cents an hour
THE DEUTSCH CO. 623
at the higher end of the highly skilled people " Holzman
said that he had discussed this decision with other
management officials for a long time and that he was
aware of all the raises being granted through the various
industries in the East "'against the Government's
guidelines ." He pictured the Company as concerned that
negotiations were going forward in the aerospace industry
and he determined that "in order to maintain a
competitive position because we were losing people and we
were having difficulty getting skilled people" that they
would have to be careful to maintain a competitive
position as against the other companies in the aerospace
industry At the time the raise was granted there was talk
of strikes at Lockheed and McDonald-Douglas. On direct
examination he was asked , "'Did the fact that the union
had an organizing drive, that there was an election to take
place on August 22. affect or determine your decision with
regard to the wage increase?"
Holzman answered as follows:
A. No, it did not. A long time ago and at that time
I had already determined, as I said before, Mr. Cooper,
that we were going to run this company, because it was
a company that had to be run, irrespective of any
outside activities that occurred. We had to run the
company on an economic competitive basis with others,
and that is the basis on which I made my decision.
Q Was the wage increase given in order to
encourage the employees to vote against the union
shop?
A It was not.
Thereafter the Trial Examiner asked the following
questions of Holzman:
Q. You were aware when the union started
organizing , were you not?
A. Yes.
Q. And you have a Personnel Director at the
company, Mr. Hanly, don't you?
A That's right.
Q And he advises you on labor matters, does he't
A. Yes.
Q. And did you discuss with him or anybody else the
advisability of giving a raise in pay during the pendency
of this union campaign, and when an election was
coming up in a couple of weeks? Did you discuss that
with him or anybody''
A. Not in those specific terms, no, sir. I had agreed
a long time with myself and with my conscience that I
was to run this company on the basis of what I thought
was best for the company , and I wasn't going to he
concerned about whether or not this was considered the
right thing to do because there was a union knocking at
our gate or not
I am certain I was aware of the fact that the union
was knocking at our gate. I knew that at the time I
gave the raise that there was going to be an election.
That didn't have any effect upon my decision.
I ran the company the way I thought it should be
run, and that is what I did.
Q. Let me ask you this: Did you discuss the situation
with Mr. Hanly about that?
A. I don't know whether I did in specilic terms or
not. He is present at most of my conversations where
we talk about wages, so I would assume that the
subject was discussed on that basis and I am sure that
what I say to you now is what I said to him. I cannot
operate on the theory that we are going to win or lose
an election when we are concerned about the economic
facts. going ahead, and running a business. making a
profit.
Peter D. Hanly also testified at the resumed hearing.
His testimony on labor relations at the company and
granting of the pay raise is enlightening . Hanly testified as
follows.
Q. (By Trial Examiner) Now, as I understand it, you
and Mr . Holzman worked together on getting out this
letter of May 20 with a card attached?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Now, on this letter of April I, with Mr.
Holzman ' s signature , did you talk to him about that,
too?
A. Mr. Holzman generally wrote the letters himself
and gave them to me for any recommendations or
changes that might be made in the letter, but that was
the extent of it.
Q. Now, as Personnel Director. are you also m
charge of labor relations for the company?
A. Normally, it might be so. Mr. Holzman has had
that position ever since he has been with the Deutsch
Company, which is some 30 years, and I am more a
second man in the labor relations field to Mr
Holzman
Q. So, in other words, he kind of runs the labor
relations'?
A That' s right, sir.
Q. But you are also engaged in that to some extent?
A. That is correct
Q. You were the individual who kept track of all the
union organizing campaign , did you not9
A. That' s right.
Q. Did you keep track of the literature they
distributed?
A. Yes, I did
Q. Did you get copies of that9
A. Yes, I did
Q. Did you discuss that with Mr. Holzman'?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And then you discussed with him the letters that
the company was going to send out?
A. Yes, we did.
Q Now, when it got around to this raise in pay. did
you discuss that with Mr. Holzman?
A. I was in on the discussions that took place
regarding the raise.
Q Was anything said about that raise in pay being
given at the time that an election was pending amongst
the employees?
A. We hadtalked about the possibility that there
might have to he a raise. This was sometime earlier in
the year But we didn't know what was going to
happen
But as the union organization drive was going along.
Mr. Holzman took the position and stated this position
to myself to the plant superintendent and the general
manager that he was going to run the company as he
always had and that he was not going to let the outside
activities interfere with his normal direction of
activities
Q. Was there anyone there who counseled him and
suggested at any time that he not give the raise in pay
for a couple of more weeks, until the election was held
among the employees?
A. I don' t remember anybody counseling him on
that, no.
Q. Was there any mention that it might be advisable
to postpone the granting of the increase until after the
election was held?
624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A. There was a mention that the timing was not
exactly good, but Mr. Holzman referred us back to his
original statement that outside activities are not going
to interfere with our work situation.
The above narration of testimony is not an exhaustive
exposition of all the testimony offered by the parties but is
a summary of the highlights which presents the main
contentions of the parties and affords a basis for review of
the Trial Examiner's findings on the issues.
Concluding Findings
It has been found above that in certain particulars the
Company violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by certain
statements made by its supervisors. It has also been found
that some of the allegations of the complaint were not
proved by a preponderance of'the evidence by the General
Counsel and those allegations have been dismissed.
The remaining issues are principally concerned with (1)
the letter of May 20 with its attachment of a form
whereby the employees could rescind their authorization
card and (2) the letter of July 31 announcing a general
pay increase effective August 5 during the pendency of the
election.
As to the letter of May 20 with its rescission form, the
Trial Examiner was impressed in the first instance by
counsel for the Company' s claim that the Union had
practiced harassment and coercion against the employees
in the procuring of authorization cards and in consequence
the letter of May 20, with the rescission form, was a
lawful method of protecting the employees in their
freedom of choice in the election. Over the objection of
the General Counsel, the Trial Examiner permitted
counsel for the Company to present the testimony of
employees who claimed to be the victims of such coercion
or harassment, thinking that such coercion or harassment
might justify this unusual letter with form attached. The
Company presented the employees who testified to the
so-called coercion and harassment. Most of the testimony
as to these incidents has been included in the narration of
testimony above. The Trial Examiner must conclude that
these incidents had no quality of coercion or intimidation
and were of a most trivial nature. It would be hard to
imagine an election in which there were nearly 300
participating employees, where there occurred less
coercion and harassment than in this election. The worst
incident of the so-called coercion occurred when two union
adherents said to one employee "you had better sign up
now, or not go to work." In another single incident a
union adherent told an employee that if he didn't sign an
authorization card, he might not have a job after the
Union won. While such statements should not be made by
one employee to another, it must be remembered that
these workmen are not lawyers skilled in the niceties of
labor law and in their enthusiasm, either for or against the
union, employees will make such statements, and if
isolated must be considered as unwanted incidents of the
elective process. In this case, some of the alleged coercive
quality of certain statements appears to have been in the
mind of the listener, rather than in the words of the
speaker. Here, no one was struck a blow, threatened with
a blow or physical violence or threatened with serious
reprisal for not signing a card. And indeed, any statement
which borders upon coercion must be viewed as an
isolated statement by one individual to another. In all the
evidence there is not a scintilla of evidence that the Union
initiated any pattern or course or plan of conduct to
intimidate the employees.
Upon a consideration of all the evidence, I find that the
Company assembled this trivia as an afterthought and
now uses it as a pretext or excuse for sending its letter of
May 20. Patently that letter was intended to create a false
impression about coercion of employees which would
prejudice the Union's chances in the pending election. The
evidence discloses no justification for this action of the
Company.
The very able counsel for the Company presents a case
plausible on the surface for the increase of pay given to
the employees, effective August 5. Holzman's testimony is
to the effect that he wanted to remain competitive in
paying wages with the other companies in the aerospace
industry. I do not reject that statement, but I regard it as
a half truth. From the testimony of Holzman and Hanly,
it is perfectly apparent, that they were aware of what the
granting of a pay increase would do to the fairness of the
election conducted by the Board on August 22. Holzman's
pious testimony that he sought only to adhere to his
policy of equal wages does not ring true, for it is crystal
clear that he and Hanly were fully aware that granting a
substantial pay increase prior to the election would
torpedo the union election campaign. It is not coincidence
in my judgment that Holzman's decision to have equal
pay, after months of study of wages in the industry,
coincided with the Board's direction of an election among
the employees. In my judgment, the secret of Holzman's
decision is disclosed in his testimony when he said, "I had
agreed a long time ago with myself and with my
conscience that I was to run this company on the basis of
what I thought was best for the company, and I wasn't
going to be concerned about whether or not this was
considered the right thing to do because there was a union
knocking at our gate or not . . . ." Translated into
everyday language, this statement means that he was not
concerned with whether this was the "right thing" to do,
with due regard given to the duties of employers and the
rights of employees under the Act.
I find that the letters of May 20 and July 31 and the
general wage increase effective August 5 constituted
conduct in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and
constitute valid objections to the conduct of election which
rendered a fair election impossible.
It is recommended, therefore, that the Board by
appropriate order shall set aside the results of election in
Case 21-RC-10863.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent, set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of
Respondent, described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and constitute unfair
labor practices which tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, it
will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
Upon the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the
THE DEUTSCH CO. 625
follow ing:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Deutsch Company, Metal Components Division,
herein called the Company or the Respondent, is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers
of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By interrogating employees concerning their union
affiliation and activity and that of their fellow employees,
by soliciting employees to revoke their union authorization
cards; by invoking an invalid no-solicitation rule; by
granting an invalid wage increase to influence their
employees against assisting or joining or voting for the
Union, the Company has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
4. By committing the unfair labor practices found
above and by interfering in the election on August 22.
1968, in the manner described above, the Company has
unlawfully interfered with the conduct of said election in
Case 21-RC-10863.
5. The unfair labor practices enumerated above are
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and the entire record in the case, it is
recommended that The Deutsch Company, Metal
Components Division, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns. shall:
1 Cease and desist from-
(a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7
of the Act by interrogating employees concerning their
and their fellow employees' union activates; soliciting
employees to revoke their authorization cards; invoking an
invalid no-solicitation rule; granting an invalid wage
increase to influence employees against assisting, joining
or voting for the Union.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization. to form labor organizations, to loin or
assist the Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, 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 mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its plant at Los Angeles, California, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix."5 Copies of
said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 21 shall, after being duly signed by the Company
Representative, be posted immediately upon receipt
thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive da)s
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. The
Company shall take reasonable steps that such notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
'in the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps the Company has taken to comply herewith.'
IT IS FLRTIIER RECOMMENDED that, unless the Company
shall within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Trial
Examiner's Decision notify said Regional Director, in
writing, that it will comply with the foregoing
recommendations, the National Labor Relations Board
issue an order requiring the Company to Lake the action
aforesaid.
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
Appeals Enforcing an Order' shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order "
'in the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, to
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of The National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that
We WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their rights tinder Section 7
of the Act by (1) interrogating employees concerning
their own or their fellow employees union activities and
affiliation; (2) soliciting employees to revoke their union
authorizations given to Industrial Union of Marine &
Shipbuilding Workers of America, AFL-CIO; (3)
invoking an invalid no-solicitation rule: (4) granting an
invalid wage increase to influence employees not to
assist, join, or vote for the above-named Union
WE WILLNOT in any manner interfere with, restrain,
or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join,
assist the labor organization named above, 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 mutual aid or protection, and to
retrain from any or all such activities.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or
to refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the
Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
Dated By
THE DEUTSCH COMPANY,
MErAL COMPONENTS
DIVISION
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material
If employees have any question concerning this notice
626 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate Columbia Building, 849 South Broadway, Los Angeles,
directly with the Board's Regional Office, Eastern California 90014, Telephone 688-5229.