The Sinclair Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 2, 1967

164 N.L.R.B. 261 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

THE SINCLAIR COMPANY
The Sinclair Company and General
Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers, Building Materials , Heavy &
Highway Construction Employees, Local
No. 404, an Affiliate of International
Brotherhood of Teamsters . Cases 1-CA-5266
and 1-RC-8713.
May 2, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN
AND JENKINS
On January 12, 1967, Trial Examiner Louis Libbin
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 and recommended
dismissal of these allegations. Thereafter, the
Respondent filed exceptions, with a supporting
brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief in
support of the Trial Examiner's Decision.
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 the briefs,
and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts
the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner with the modification set out
below.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and
hereby orders that the Respondent, The Sinclair
Company, Holyoke, Massachusetts, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order, as herein modified:
1. Delete the word "other" from paragraph 1(c) of
the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, and
substitute therefor the words "like or related ...."
2. Delete the word "other" from the paragraph
beginning "WE WILL NOT in any other manner" in
Appendix attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision,
and substitute therefor the words "like or related
ee
261
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for
certification of representative filed in Case
1-RC-8713 be, and it hereby is, dismissed, and that
all prior proceedings held thereunder be, and they
hereby are, vacated.
' Contrary to the assertion made by the Respondent, we do not
read the Trial Examiner's Decision as relying on the distribution
of the book "The Enemy Within" as a part of the totality of the
Respondent's conduct in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act In
any event, we would not find the distribution unlawful in itself or
in context, either as a violation of Section 8(a)(1) or as grounds for
setting aside the election
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Louis LIBBIN, Trial Examiner: This proceeding,
involving consolidated cases, was heard at Springfield,
Massachusetts, on October 4 and 5, 1966, pursuant to due
notice. The complaint in Case 1-CA-5266, issued on
July 22, 1966, pursuant to charges filed by the Union, on
December 14, 1965, alleges, in substance, that
Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act (1) by refusing at all times after September 20,
1965, upon request, to bargain collectively with the Union
which was the exclusive bargaining representative of the
employees in a designated appropriate unit, and (2) by
engaging in various specified acts of interference,
restraint, and coercion. Respondent's duly filed answer
denies the unfair labor practice allegations and asserts
certain affirmative defenses. Case 1-RC-8713 arises out
of a representation election conducted by the Board on
December 9, 1965, timely objections to the election filed
by the Union on December 14, 1965, and timely exceptions
filed by the Union on February 2, 1966, to the Regional
Director's report on objections. The Board, on March 8,
1966, ordered that a hearing be held to resolve the issues
raised by the Union's objections and exceptions.
For the reasons hereinafter indicated, I find that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act, that
there is merit to some of the Union's objections, and that
the election should be set aside. Upon the entire record' in
the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent, The Sinclair Company, is a Massachusetts
corporation with its principal place of business in Holyoke,
Massachusetts, where it is engaged in the manufacture,
sale, and distribution of papermill rolls, wires, and related
products. Respondent receives materials, annually valued
in excess of $50,000, at its Holyoke plant directly from
points outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; it
also ships products, having an annual value in excess of
$50,000, from its Holyoke plant to points outside the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Upon the above admitted facts, I find, as Respondent
admits in its answer, that Respondent is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
' Certain errors in the transcript have been noted and
corrected
164 NLRB No. 49
262 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, the record
shows, and I find , that General Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers , Building Materials, Heavy &
Highway Construction Employees , Local No. 404, an
Affiliate of International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the
Charging Party herein called the Union or Local 404, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND OBJECTION TO
ELECTION
A. Introduction; the Issues
The Union began organizing Respondent's employees in
July 1965.-' By letter dated September 20, the Union
informed Respondent that it represented a majority of
Respondent's journeyman wire weavers and apprentices,
and requested recognition and a meeting to negotiate a
collective-bargaining agreement. At that time, the Union
had signed authorization cards from 11 of Respondent's 14
journeymen wire weavers. The Respondent employed no
apprentices. By reply letter dated September 28,
Respondent refused the Union's request for recognition on
the asserted grounds that it doubted the Union's claimed
majority status, the appropriateness of the unit , and the
reliability of authorization cards to prove majority status.
Upon the filing of a representation petition by the Union on
November 8, the Board, pursuant to a consent-election
agreement, conducted an election among Respondent's
journeymen wire weavers on December 9; of the 13 ballots
cast among the 14 eligible voters, the Union was defeated
by a vote of 7 to 6. Meanwhile, during the period from July
up to and including the day before the election,
Respondent President Sinclair addressed the employees
through a series of speeches, letters, pamphlets, and
individual talks, to induce them to reject the Union as their
collective-bargaining representative.
The principal issues in this case are (1) the speeches,
letters, pamphlets, and individual talks of President
Sinclair, either separately, or in their totality, constituted
interference, restraint, and coercion violative of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act;3 (2) by so much of the foregoing conduct
which occurred after the filing of the representation
petition, the Respondent interfered with the employees'
exercise of a free choice in the election of December 9 so
as to warrant setting aside the election; and
(3) Respondent's refusal to bargain with the Union was
motivated by a good-faith doubt with respect to the
requested unit and the Union's majority status therein.
B. Background
The Sinclair Company was founded by President David
H. Sinclair's father in 1925. From 1933 until 1952 the
American Wire Weavers Protective Association, herein
sometimes called the AWWPA, represented Respondent's
journeymen wire weavers and apprentices and had
contracts covering this unit on a national basis. President
David Sinclair began working for Respondent on a full-
Unless otherwise indicated , all dates hereinafter mentioned
are in the year 1965
1 Also in issue is whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act by the conduct of Superintendent William Seavey, an
time basis in 1947, and, until 1952, was Respondent's
representative in the contract negotiations with AWWPA
for the journeymen and apprentice wire weavers, which
negotiations were held on an industrywide basis in
Cleveland and New York. In 1952 Respondent's plant was
closed for about 12 or 13 weeks as a result of a strike called
by AWWPA. The strike terminated in September 1952,
when the plant was reopened without a union contract on
the basis of Respondent's last offer to the AWWPA.
Respondent had no further dealings with AWWPA which
thereafter "faded out" and no longer represented any of
Respondent's employees. From the termination of the
strike in 1952 until the Union began its organizational
efforts in July 1965, Respondent's employees were not
represented by any union.
In 1963 Respondent opened a weaving plant in Florence,
Mississippi, which was known as the Sinclair Wire Works.
Gary Brunault, a member of the Union's employee
organizing committee in July 1965 but no longer employed
by Respondent at the time of the instant hearing, testified
that sometime in the summer of 1963 he went to President
David Sinclair's office and asked for a raise, that Sinclair
stated that the Company could not afford one, that
Brunault stated that the good thing about a union is that
you could negotiate for a raise with power, and that
Sinclair replied that there would not be a union at
Respondent's plant as long as he was president and that if
Brunault did not like the conditions he knew where the
door was. President Sinclair remembered an occasion
about that time when Brunault asked for a raise; he
testified that he told Brunault that there was nothing he
could do about it at that time, and specifically denied
having made the other statements attributed to him by
Brunault. Although Brunault testified that the
conversation lasted about 20 minutes, he could not
remember anything else that was said. President Sinclair
impressed me as a forthright and candid witness. I was not
favorably impressed by Brunault. Under all the
circumstances, I do not credit Brunault's disputed
testimony and credit Sinclair's denials.
In 1964 the Lindsay Wire Weaving Company of
Cleveland, Ohio, herein sometimes called Lindsay,
acquired 100 percent of the stock of Respondent, which
then became a division of Lindsay. Respondent's
Florence, Mississippi, plant at that time also became part
of the Lindsay operation which, in addition, consisted of
plants in Cleveland and Mentor, Ohio. However, David
Sinclair continued as, and still is, president of
Respondent.
C. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
President Sinclair first learned of the Union's
organizational campaign in the early part of July when he
was informed by some employees, and was given a copy, of
the leaflet and attached authorization card mailed to the
homes of employees. From that time until the day of the
election, President Sinclair, through a series of speeches,
letters, pamphlets, and talks with individual employees,
engaged in a campaign to induce the employees to reject
the Union as their collective-bargaining representative.
admitted supervisor, in allegedly attempting to cause the South
Hadley American Legion Post to deny the use of its meeting hall
to Respondent 's employees for a union organizational meeting
THE SINCLAIR COMPANY 263
1. The facts "
a. The July speech
Early in July President Sinclair talked to all the
employees in separate groups concerning the Union's
organizational drive. He had no written speech and used
no notes. His speech to the wire weaving group, which
lasted about 10 to 12 minutes, is the only one concerning
which Sinclair testified as follows:
When he talked to the weaving department, which
included the wire weavers, he told them that he was
"going to be blunt" with them because he knew that the
union organizing campaign started in their department. He
told them that "I was disappointed" that they were
considering getting a union into the plant "because they
had union experience, that the last union [with which] we
had had dealings in our wire weaving group had a strike of
a good many weeks [sic] duration and that most of the
people there could well remember that had almost put our
company out of business at that point and that I was
disappointed to see that some of what I considered to be
lessons of the past weren't living with them any more." He
spoke of the Company's financial condition, indicating
that ever since the last strike the shop has been running on
"thin ice"; pointed out that "strikes were initiated by
unions" and not "by any act of the Company";
emphasized that if the Company could not agree to the
Union's demands, "the union's only weapon is a strike";
and pointed out that, while he did not intend to close, a
strike "could lead to the closing of the plant." Sinclair also
told the group that the wire weavers craft was a small one,
that it would be difficult for them to find other jobs
because it was not like finding a job as a machinist, that
many of them did not have the education, which would
make it difficult for them to find another job, and that
many of them were getting too old to go out and find new
jobs.
He further told the men that he did not have a great deal
of respect for the Teamsters, that he had read a great deal
about their leadership, and that this was not the kind of an
organization that he would like to deal with. He also stated
that "there were inequities in our method of compensating
or paying the weaving shop," that he had been concerned
with this for a long time, that "if I was involved with
negotiations I would certainly correct this," and that "by
correcting these it would mean that I would negotiate
down in the instance where these things would correct
themselves in that direction as well as up in other
directions."
He told the group that "we had basically been given a
second chance in the chance to grow through our merger
with Lindsay," that "we had to earn our own way," and
that he "hoped that we would be able to reach a point
where we would put in new and more modern equipment
than we had to make everyone's job better, but that
certainly the Lindsay Company was not going to pour
money into this if we were not making a profit." He also
told them that "we had a very sad experience with a union
before, which they knew of, and that he did not want to get
into the position" where the Union would strike the
Company when it could not meet the Union's demands,
with the resultant possibility of the plant closing, adding
that the last thing he wanted was a closed plant.
Sinclair further told the group that he did not feel that
Lindsay needed the production equipment in
Respondent's weaving department to meet the total needs
for wire cloth of the entire organization, that he did not
think "the Lindsay organization was going to be
concerned" if "through contract negotiations with a union
our people went on strike," that a strike could close
Respondent's plant and nothing would prevent Lindsay
from having Respondent's weaving work done at Lindsay's
plant in Ohio or Mississippi. He also stated that
Respondent was subject to foreign competition and that it
was conceivable that if the plant was closed, under any
circumstances, that some of the work would go to foreign
companies and that Respondent had handled foreign wires
in the past. He pointed out that all they had to do was to
look around Holyoke if they thought a strike could not
close Respondent's plant.'
b. The November 2 letter
On November 2, President Sinclair mailed to all
employees a letter bearing that date and addressed "To
All Employees." The letter informed the employees
that the pending Board election "raises a number of
questions which should be answered." Then, in answer to
hypothetical questions raised by Sinclair, the letter states,
among other things, that "there is nothing that the
Teamsters or any other Union can offer you which will in
any way increase your job security under the
circumstances existing at this plant" (p. 2), that "We are
still on `thin ice,"' and that "it just doesn't make sense for
us to meet unreasonable Union demands which will result
in further losses and eventually the necessity of closing the
plant" (p. 3).
c. The November 5 letter
This letter from President Sinclair is dated November 5
and is also addressed "To All Employees." President
Sinclair testified that this letter was mailed to all
employees on that date or a few days thereafter. In this
letter Sinclair reviewed the Company's "poor earnings
history," and emphasized that the "new ownership is
interested in profits and not pressure. They have no ties
with Holyoke or Massachusetts. If a dollar invested here
can't earn as much as a dollar invested in Mississippi or
Ohio, or somewhere else, you can be sure that their dollars
are going to go where they can earn the most pennies" (p.
2). Contrasting what the Union would do, he stated that
"the Teamsters Union promises you a lot, but what can
they deliver except pressure-the threat of a strike?" He
' Unless otherwise indicated, the factual findings in this section
are based on evidence which is either admitted or undisputed
5 The above findings are based on the credited testimony of
President Sinclair Richard Bougie, the only other witness who
testified to the content of Sinclair's speech, testified as a witness
for the General Counsel that Sinclair also stated during the course
of his talk that " if we attempted to bring in a union at this time
that Lindsay was sure to close," and that "if he was instructed to
negotiate a contract he would negotiate down and not up "
Sinclair denied having made these statements With respect to
the first statement , Bougie testified that he was "reasonably
sure" that Sinclair said it, he then added that it was "probably not
in those words " He either did not know or could not "recall"
what Sinclair said on most of the other subjects Although the
General Counsel called as witnesses 10 of the weavers who were
employed at the time of Sinclair's speech, he adduced no
testimony from them or from any other witness in corroboration of
Bougie in this respect Under all the circumstances, I am
convinced that Bougie's testimony merely reflects his impression
of what Sinclair said, I do not credit Bougie's testimony that
Sinclair in fact made the above statements attributed to him, and
credit Sinclair 's denials in this respect
264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
then stated that "I do not believe the threat of a strike will
cause the new owners any loss of sleep. However, a long
strike would be bad for me because I would like to remain
in Holyoke. I have pride in the Sinclair family and would
like to see the plant modernized, expanded and prosper"
(p. 2).
d. The November 22 letter and book entitled, "The Enemy
Within"
By a covering letter dated November 22 and addressed
"To All Employees," Sinclair enclosed "a copy of the book
written by Senator Bob Kennedy entitled, `The Enemy
Within"'; informed the employees that "this book is the
experience of Senator Kennedy when he was Attorney
General of the United States and investigating
racketeering aspects of the labor movement in the United
States"; and urged them to "take the time to read it."
f. The November 30 letter
In this letter, addressed to "ALL WIRE WEAVERS,"
President Sinclair again reminds the employees of the long
strike 15 years ago, when Respondent was "virtually out of
business" and the plant was "reopened on a non-union
basis." He then warns that "a strike can still close the
Holyoke plant, but other plants can pick up the work," and
that the new ownership "is interested in profits and not
pressure." He then points out that the "Teamster Union"
cannot do anything "to improve our profit position," but
can only make "big" demands "which the Company
cannot meet" and then "call you out on strike" because "a
strike is a Union's only weapon" to enforce its "big"
demands. He then asks, "can you afford a long strike"
"when you know the Holyoke plant has been given a
second chance to stay in business and furnish jobs for all
of us?"
e. The undated November pamphlet
It was stipulated that this pamphlet was sent by
President Sinclair, as it is addressed, "TO ALL WIRE
WEAVERS" about 2 to 3 weeks before the December 9
election.
Page one shows a Teamsters picket in front of the
Respondent's plant with the question "Who would buy the
Groceries ... while you walk the Teamsters picket line?"
A heading in bold red letters on page two asks, "Do you
want another 13-week strike?" Another paragraph on page
two has the italicized heading "No changes at this time,"
and states:
During a union organizing campaign an employer is
prohibited by law from making any changes in wages
or other benefits which could induce any employee to
change his mind on how he will vote. Because of this
rule, we are unable to discuss wages with other
groups of our employees whom the Union does not
wish to represent at this time-
Other paragraphs on page 2 point out that "the Union
has only one weapon with which it can try to make good its
big campaign promises to the Wire Weavers. That weapon
is a strike. We had a 13-week strike in the Wire Weaving
Department in the early 1950's. The Wire Waving
Department was closed ... We have no doubt that the
Teamsters Union can again close the Wire Weaving
Department and the entire plant by a strike. We have no
hopes that the Teamsters Union Bosses will not call a
strike ... The Teamsters Union is a strike happy outfit ...
Unions sometimes call strikes as a 'face-saving' gesture."
On page 3 appears the statement that "you have an
equal right to refuse to strike and to come through the
Union's picket line. This might be very rough for a while.
The Teamsters Union is notorious for its picket line
violence." Following these remarks is a cartoon showing
Respondent's plant closed down with a "Sinclair" flag
flying at half mast and the statement in red letters next to
the cartoon, "The `Closedest' Closed Shop In Town."
Towards the end of page 3, the Respondent states that
the Teamsters Union Organizers "obviously" cannot make
good on their promises , and asks, "how long a strike can
you afford?" This appears near a cartoon of a "closed shop
worker" with his empty pockets labeled "IBT Was Here."
The entire last page contains the admonition, in bold red
and black letters, to "VOTE RIGHT, AVOID STRIKES,`
followed by an X in a square with the word "NO" over the
square.
g. The December 1 letter
In the December 1 letter, addressed "TO ALL WIRE
WEAVERS ," Sinclair devotes three pages to informing
the employees that the Teamsters Union is involved with
"serious crimes," "racketeering," "hoodlum domination,"
"shocking misdeeds," "goon squads," "threats to run
down children," and "unlawful acts." He then warns that
"if the Teamsters Union wins this election, it will be very
difficult for you to get another election to vote it out." He
then concludes with the admonition that "A `No' vote is a
vote against surrendering your rights to the Bosses of the
`Hoodlum saturated' Teamsters Union" while "A `yes'
vote is a vote to become a part of them."
h. The December 7 letter
This is a four-page letter or handbill, dated December 7,
from President Sinclair "TO ALL WIRE WEAVERS,"
and entitled "LET'S LOOK AT THE RECORD." The first
page contains a large cartoon , showing that certain named
companies lie buried in a graveyard with the Teamsters
Union about to bury the Sinclair Company. The letter
opens with the statement that "the Holyoke-Springfield
industrial graveyard is filled with Companies which died
under union pressure," and warns that before deciding
how to vote in the December 9 election "every WIRE
WEAVER in this plant would find it profitable to visit a
few of the sites of once prosperous companies in the
Holyoke area." Page 2 lists the names of companies which
closed down, with the number of jobs lost, and points out
that "these companies needed higher production and
better quality to meet stiffer competition. The `union
doctor' gave them bloodletting strikes, restricted
production and higher labor costs. The result, as you can
see as you look around you, was the death of these
companies ." Sinclair then states in part , that "whatever
your feelings about unions may be, these facts exist !
Factories are gone ! Jobs are gone !" (P. 2.) He asks, "what
facts do you have which would lead you to believe that a
hoodlum dominated union, like the Teamsters , can give
you real job opportunity at the Sinclair Company?" {P. 2.)
He then warns that "against a background such as ours,
your dreams of `union miracles' can be dangerous to your
real job security," and urges that "before making your
decision, drive past a few of the vacant plants where
business died ," assuring that "it will not be a pleasant
drive but it could be a very informative one for you" (p. 3).
At the bottom of page 3, in bold black letters, appears the
THE SINCLAIR COMPANY
slogan , "VOTE RIGHT, AVOID STRIKES," with an X in
a square and the word "no" over the square.
Page 4 contains the names and pictures of five plants
which closed down, with statements such as: "Remember
When These Plants FURNISHED Jobs To Area People?";
"Unions Furnished No Job Security Here !"; "Death Along
The River"; and "So Quiet Today."
Sinclair admitted at the instant hearing that he had no
objective basis for stating that a union had anything to do
with the closing of these plants.
i. The December 8 leaflet
The parties stipulated that this leaflet was handed out to
the unit employees (wire weavers ) on December 8 by
President Sinclair at a company meeting. One side of this
leaflet refers to the convictions of Teamsters International
officials and to the "Hoodlum" and "Racketeer"
domination of the Union. The other side repeats the slogan
to "VOTE RIGHT, AVOID STRIKES" and enumerates
what a "NO" vote will do, such as "never called a strike"
and "never cost you a single day's pay" or "a cent of your
paycheck." It concludes with the indication that a "NO"
vote will "protect yourself" and "protect your family."
j. The December 8 speech
President Sinclair delivered a speech to the unit
employees (wire weavers ) at 1:30 p . m. on December 8, in
the presence of the weave shop foreman. This time he
talked from notes which he had before him. Many of the
things he said were admittedly a repetition of what he had
previously stated in his July speech . He opened his speech
by referring to the corruption in the Teamsters and the
conviction of some of its officials. Among the statements
admittedly made by Sinclair were, in substance, the
following:
The Lindsay Company has made it clear that they want
to make a profit in Holyoke at Sinclair and will not sink a
bundle of money in Sinclair "for the fun of it"; if the
Sinclair Company does not make a profit on its own, there
was nothing to prevent Lindsay from having the work done
at its facilities in Mississippi or Ohio; we have been
operating on "thin ice"; the Teamsters Union can only
demand higher wages and expensive welfare and pension
plans which could lead to even larger losses, and can call
you out on strike; we could not accede to unreasonable
demands; the Union 's only weapon is a strike; a strike
could lead to the closing of the plant; the weaving
production at Sinclair was not a necessity to the success of
the total operation of the Lindsay organization because
Lindsay had other facilities where the material could be
woven ; he did not think the Lindsay organization was
going to be concerned about the threat of a strike; we were
still subject to foreign competition and it was perfectly
conceivable , if under any circumstances the plant should
close, that some of this work could go to the foreign wire
companies ; we had had to handle foreign wires in the past;
the Teamsters cannot guarantee you another job if the
plant should close because of a strike; it made no
difference to the Teamsters whether or not Sinclair stayed
in business ; the Teamsters might feel that other
companies with whom they had contracts would pick up
our lost business ; "they don't care which sheep they shear
F The findings concerning the December 8 speech are based
entirely on Sinclair's testimony and Resp Exh. 20
' The findings as to this conversation are based on the credited
265
so long as they get the wool"; "it makes a lot of difference
to me who is working"; I "want my job and I suppose that
you want your job"; the wire weavers had a skilled trade
which had limited use; "we are all Jack Benny's," with no
one admitting that he is getting older ; some of the wire
weavers were over 60 years old, which is a difficult time in
life to start over again ; " most companies probably have a
large number of applicants who are younger and better
experienced ," with "a lot better insurance rating," who
"could be hired for less money"; "I am giving you the facts
today and by my mailings previously"; "I am not
concerned with beating a union ," but "I am concerned
with our future."
At the end of his talk, he asked if any of the employees
would like to ask questions. No questions were asked.6
k. Individual employee talks
President Sinclair admitted that during the period from
July to the date of the election on December 9, he talked to
about 10 of the 14 wire weavers in the unit , individually, in
the weave shop where they worked. He admitted that on
these occasions he told the individual employees that he
would like to talk to them about the Union, asked if the
employees had any questions concerning President
Sinclair's position and the Company's feeling about the
matter, and stated that he would answer any such
questions if he could . Some of the employees asked
questions which he attempted to answer . These questions
"included some of the matters that were in my talk to the
group in July."
The record contains the specific content of only one of
these conversations. In the latter part of September or the
first part of October, after Sinclair had been informed by
the Union in a letter dated September 24 that Richard
Bougie, a wire weaver, was appointed a member of the
union organizing committee , President Sinclair came to
Bougie's workplace and asked what Bougie expected to
get out of the Union, adding that "I realize that you are
sold on this idea and I am here to try to unsell you."
Bougie replied that he would like to see job security,
seniority rights, and possibly a pension plan. Sinclair
mentioned the things he liked such as a health and
accident plan, stated how much these things would cost,
and explained that he could not afford them.7
2. Concluding findings
I am convinced and find that the series of letters,
pamphlets, leaflets, and speeches from and by President
Sinclair, hereinabove described, taken together and
considered as a whole, reasonably tended to convey to the
employees the belief or impression that selection of the
Union in the forthcoming election could lead Respondent
to close its plant , or to the transfer of the weaving
production, with the resultant loss of jobs to the wire
weavers. I reach the same conclusion and make the same
finding based only on the totality of so much of the
foregoing as occurred after November 8, the date on which
the Union filed its representation petition , particularly
when considered in the light of the letters and speech
which preceded that date as background." By the
foregoing conduct, Respondent in each case interfered
with, restrained, and coerced the employees in the
testimony of Bougie Sinclair did not deny Bougie 's testimony in
this regard
8 Cf Dee's of New Jersey , Inc , 161 NLRB 204
266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
and thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.9
Sinclair admitted that his Company had made a small
profit in 1965, that the Charging Union in this case,
Local 404, had never made any demands at all upon
Respondent, and that he had no basis for concluding that
this Local or its leaders were in any way connected with
racketeering or hoodlums or picket line violence. But the
message which the foregoing preelection campaign, even
after November 8, reasonably tended to convey to the
employees was that if they selected this Union as their
bargaining representative, a strike would be inevitable
because the Union would make excessive demands which
Respondent would refuse to meet , that a strike could lead
to the closing of the plant or the transfer of the weaving
production to Lindsay's other facilities, and that the wire
weavers would then lose their jobs and find it difficult to
get other jobs because of their age and limited craft skills.
The General Counsel further contends in his brief that
certain specific statements in the July speech and
subsequent letters and the individual talks with the 10 unit
employees, each independently constituted a violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In view of my previous findings
concerning Respondent's violation of Section 8(a)(1), I
deem it unnecessary to consider and to pass upon these
contentions.
D. The Allegation Concerning the Rental of the American
Legion Hall
Paragraph 14(c) of the complaint alleges: "Respondent,
by its supervisor and agent, William Seavey, during the
month of November 1965 or the first part of December
1965, in the Holyoke or South Hadley, Massachusetts area,
attempted to cause the officers and/or managing agents of
the American Legion Post organization not to allow its
employees to use the American Legion Post facilities
located at South Hadley, Massachusetts for the purpose of
holding a union organizational meeting, and said Legion
Post has officers and members who are employees of the
Respondent, in order to interfere with, restrain and coerce
the employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act."
William Seavey is employed by Respondent as
superintendent of the machine division and is admitted to
be a supervisor and agent of Respondent. During the past
10 years, Seavey has been a member of the American
Legion Post 260, headquartered in a building owned by the
Legion Post and located about one-half to three-quarters of
a mile from Respondent's plant. At one time or another,
Seavey has held every position with the Legion Post; in
November 1965, he was the chaplain, a member of the
board of directors, and the president of the board of
trustees.
Seavey has been a member of the board of directors
since the time when he was the moving force in the
purchase of the Legion Post building in 1959 or 1960.
During his stewardship and because of his efforts, the
membership of the Post had risen to 176 but had fallen to
140 or 150 in November 1965. Seven of the members were
employed by Respondent, including Post Commander
Nadeau and President Sinclair.
The top floor of the Legion building is rented from time
to time to other organizations, and was regularly rented for
B See, e g , Harold Miller, et al dlb/a Miller-Charles and
Company, 146 NLRB 405, affd 341 F 2d 870 (C A 2), Harvey
Aluminum , 156 NLRB 1353, Suprenant Mfg Co , 144 NLRB 507,
the monthly meetings of labor organizations which
represented employees at two,area companies. Although
this hall was never rented by Respondent, a going-away
party for two of Respondent's employees was held there in
1963, attended by Seavey and President Sinclair, and a
retirement party for one of Respondent's employees was
held there in 1965, attended by President Seavey.
Respondent has an employee association which takes care
of this type of functions.
During the time material herein, the manager of the
building was Harold Geissler, who was also on the board of
directors but was not an employee of Respondent. The
steward was Richard Meta, who was also employed there
as the bartender. The board of directors consisted of 14
members. There are two trustees who have the authority
with respect to the upkeep and maintenance of the
building. When a question arises regarding the use of the
building, the board of trustees will meet and pass upon it.
Either a member will leave a note for the manager
regarding a proposed rental or the manager can arrange
the rental. The board of trustees acts officially in rental
matters only when a problem arises, and this does not
occur in more than one case out of a hundred.
In November 1965 Post Commander Nadeau, who was
employed by Respondent as a truckdriver, asked Seavey if
he knew that Respondent's employees were attempting to
rent the Legion Hall for a union organizing meeting. It was
Nadeau's practice to request Seavey's opinion on all
matters pertaining to American Legion business. Seavey
replied that he had heard about it but had not heard
anything official. Nadeau asked Seavey what he thought
about it. Seavey replied that he "didn't like it," stating that
President Sinclair and five other employees of Sinclair
were members of the Post and that he "didn't think it was
right."
A few weeks later, Seavey was approached by two
members of the Legion Post's board of directors, Geissler
and Petri, concerning the hall rental for the proposed
union meeting. Geissler was also the manager of the
Legion Post. Seavey stated that he would rather not
discuss the matter at the bar, and they moved to an
adjoining room. The bartender or steward informed them
that "one of the boys" gave him a $10 down payment for
he use of the hall. All three expressed surprise, and this
was the first time Seavey obtained any real information
about the matter. Geissler and Petri asked Seavey how he
felt about it. Seavey replied that he didn't like it, that there
would be conflict with members that were in the shop, that
the Legion had worked hard for members, that he
had tried to build the Post up and had brought seven
members in from Sinclair, that he didn't want to use the
Legion Hall as grounds for an argument, and that he would
prefer that the meeting be held somewhere else, on neutral
grounds.
No meeting of the board of directors or of the trustees
was held; nor did Seavey request such a meeting, although
he was a member of both boards. Seavey gave no
instructions to the steward or to the manager concerning
this matter; nor did he mention it to President Sinclair or
any other agent or supervisor of Respondent. However, as
a result of this matter involving the rental of the hall to
Respondent's employees for union organizational
meetings, Seavey resigned as president of the board of
trustees before his term had expired.
510-511, enfd 341 F 2d 756, 761 (C A 6), Ideal Baking Company
of Tennessee, Inc , 143 NLRB 546, and Kolmar Laboratories, Inc,
159 NLRB 805, and cases cited in fn 3
THE SINCLAIR COMPANY 267
Upon consideration of all the foregoing, I find that
Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the
above-described conduct of Superintendent Seavey.
E. Objections to Election
An election was conducted by the Board in a unit of
Respondent's journeymen wire weavers on December 9,
1965. As previously noted, the Union lost the election by a
vote of 7 to 6. Thereafter, timely objections and exceptions
were filed by the Union, and the hearing ordered by the
Board was for the purpose of resolving the issues raised
thereby. The hearing was consolidated with the hearing in
the unfair labor practice case.
It is well settled that the Board will consider only
conduct which occurred after the date of the filing of the
petition as a basis for objections to an election. 10 In this
case, the petition was filed on November 8, 1965. As I have
previously found, the series of letters, pamphlets, and
leaflets, and the December 8 speech, from and by
President Sinclair after November 9, taken together and
considered as a whole, particularly in the light of his
letters and speech which preceded that date as
background, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act because
they reasonably tended to convey to the wire weavers the
belief or impression that selection of the Union in the
forthcoming election could lead Respondent to close its
plant, or to the transfer of the weaving production, with the
resultant loss of jobs to the wire weavers. I further find
that the aformentioned conduct also interfered with the
exercise of a free and untrammeled choice in the election
involved here. See Dal-Tex Optical Company, Inc., 137
NLRB 1782, 1786-87. Accordingly, I find that the
Respondent's conduct deprived the employees of their
right to express a free choice in the election. I there-
fore find merit in and sustain the objections 1, 2, and
duplicate 2, and recommend that the election of
December 9, 1965, be set aside.
Moreover, assuming, arguendo, that Respondent's
above-described conduct is not found to be violative of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I nevertheless recommend
setting the election aside. It is clear that Respondent's
entire preelection campaign after November 8 generated
an atmosphere of fear of economic loss which completely
polluted the free atmosphere which is indispensable to a
valid election and tended to foreclose the possibility that
the election issues will be decided on the basis of the
employees' judgment as to whether the Union will be able
to represent them effectively in light of existing economic
conditions."
F. The Refusal to Bargain
1. The appropriate unit and the Union's majority status
therein
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find,
that all journeymen wire weavers of Respondent employed
at its Holyoke, Massachusetts, plant, exclusive of all other
employees, all production and maintenance employees,
service employees, office clerical employees, guards and
all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
The parties stipulated to the names of the employees in
the appropriate unit at all material times herein, which
consisted of a total of 14 employees; they further
stipulated that the same 14 named employees were the
only ones employed in the unit by Respondent during the
period from July 6 through December 9, 1965. The General
Counsel introduced into evidence union authorization
cards signed in July 1965 by 11 of the 14 employees in the
appropriate unit . At the hearing, but no longer mentioned
in his brief, counsel for Respondent objected to the cards
signed by Gary Brunault , Victor Goulet, and William
Dean. He affirmatively stated that he had no objections to
the cards signed by the other eight employees, thus
conceding that in July 1965 the Union had valid
authorization cards signed by a majority of the employees
in the appropriate unit.
The objection to the card signed by Brunault was on the
alleged ground that the date was not properly
authenticated. His card bears the date of "7-20-65."
Brunault credibly testified that he received the union card
at his home by mail about July 6 or 7, 1965, that he filled it
out and signed it at home but did not date it, that he then
put it in his shirt pocket, and later mailed it when he got to
a mailbox. He further credibly testified that to the best of
his recollection it was July 8 when he filled it out and
signed it. The card bears a United States postal stamp of
July 9. Brunault explained that someone must have put the
date on the card after it was received by the Union. I find
that Brunault signed the card between July 6 and 9, 1965,
and that this is a valid authorization card for the purpose of
determining the Union's representative status.
The objection to the card signed by Goulet was on the
alleged ground that Goulet could not testify positively
concerning the facts in connection with the card. Goulet
credibly testified that he signed the card on July 7, and
that he filled it out himself, including the date. I find no
merit in Respondent's objection, and find this to be a valid
authorization card for the purpose of determining the
Union's representative status.
The objection to the card signed by Dean was on the
ground that he allegedly did not voluntarily mail the card
or deliver it to the Union. Dean credibly testified that he
received the card in the mail, he signed it at home, he had
read it before signing it, he then placed it on his bureau
because he wanted to think it over for "a little while," and
the next day his wife told him that she had his son mail it.
He further credibly testified that, although he had not
authorized his wife to mail it, he did nothing thereafter to
try to get his card back or to revoke his authorization. I
find this card to be a valid authorization card for the
purpose of determining the Union's representative status.
It thus appears that a clear majority of the employees in
an appropriate unit had validly designated the Union as
their bargaining representative when the Union made its
demand on September 20, 1965, for recognition and
bargaining. While a Board election is normally the best
method of determining whether or not employees desire to
be represented by a bargaining agent , where, as here, an
employer engages in unfair labor practices which make
impossible the holding of a free election, there is no
alternative but to look to the signed authorization cards as
the only available proof of the choice employees would
have absent the employer's unfair labor practices.12 To the
10 Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, 138 NLRB 453
" See, e g., Ideal Baking Company, supra , 553, General
Industries Electronics Company, 146 NLRB 1139, and Brunswick
Corporation, 147 NLRB 428
12 Bryant Chucking Grinder Company, 160 NLRB 1526
268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
extent that the election revealed a loss of union support,
such loss must be found attributable to the Respondent's
unfair labor practices. I find that at all times on and after
September 20, 1965, the Union has represented a majority
of the employees within the appropriate unit and has been,
and still is, the exclusive representative of all the
employees within said unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
2. The request and refusal
By letter dated September 20, 1965, from Union
President Carmin Napoli and addressed to Respondent's
President Sinclair, the Union advised that "the majority of
your journeymen-wire weavers and apprentices at your
Holyoke, Massachusetts, location have designated this
Local Union, an affiliate of the International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, as their collective bargaining
representative"; requested "recognition as the exclusive
bargaining representative of the aforementioned
Employees" and a "meeting , as soon as possible, for the
purpose of negotiating a collective bargaining agreement
covering wages, hours and other conditions of
employment"; and offered "to submit signed authorization
cards of your Employees to a neutral party, mutually
agreed upon, and to allow the third party to compare these
cards with your present payroll" if "you have any doubt as
to our representing a majority of your employees in the
above described bargaining unit ." The letter concluded
with the statement that "we would appreciate hearing
from you on this matter at your earliest convenience."
President Sinclair admitted receiving this letter and
replying by a letter dated September 28, 1965. The reply
letter acknowledged receipt of the above-described letter
of the Union; stated that "your request for recognition is
denied (a) because the Company has a good-faith doubt
that Local 404 of the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters represents an uncoerced majority of its
weaving department employees, (b) because as stated by
NLRB Chairman McCullough [sic], authorization cards
are unreliable as a means for determining a Union's
majority status , and (c) because the Company expects that
there will be questions concerning the appropriate
bargaining unit which should be determined by the
Board"; and suggested "that Local 404 follow the election
procedures established by the Board." The Union
admitted receiving this letter.
3. Respondent's contentions and concluding findings
Sinclair testified that "I was not at all sure that they
represented a majority of the employees because I didn't
actually know exactly what they were talking about as far
as bargaining unit is concerned." He further testified that
he was questioning the appropriateness of the requested
bargaining unit of journeymen wire weavers and
apprentices because "we had no apprentices at that time"
and "I did not know what was meant by an apprentice." I
find this argument to be specious. Sinclair very well knew
what an apprentice wire weaver was. He admitted that
Respondent had in the past employed wire weaver
apprentices , that it had not been unusual for a wire
weaving department to employ both journeymen and wire
weaver apprentices , that the only union which ever
represented any of Respondent 's employees represented
the journeymen wire weavers and apprentices , and that
many of the journeymen wire weavers employed by
Respondent during the period from July through
December had started as apprentices and had served their
apprentice years with Respondent. He further admitted
that the helpers employed in the weaving department "to
assist the weavers in the various operations of setting up
and removing cloth " are not apprentices. Sinclair
admittedly made no effort to ascertain to whom the Union
was referring by the category of apprentices in his employ
at that time and that there were only 14 journeymen wire
weavers employed . In the latter part of November,
Respondent entered into a stipulation that its journeymen
wire weavers constituted an appropriate unit . I find that
Respondent did not have any good-faith doubt as to the
composition of the bargaining unit which the Union
claimed to represent13 or that such a unit was appropriate
for collective -bargaining purposes even if Respondent at
that time employed no apprentices. Moreover , a good-
faith , but erroneous, belief that a unit is inappropriate is no
defense to a refusal to bargain. 19
As previously noted , the Union's bargaining request of
September 20 and the representation petition which it
filed on November 8, covered a unit of journeymen wire
weavers and apprentices . However , as Respondent
employed no apprentices, the stipulation which the parties
executed in the latter part of November and the instant
complaint covers a unit only of journeymen wire weavers
as an appropriate unit . Counsel for Respondent contends
in his brief that there was no bargaining request in a unit
confined solely to journeymen wire weavers and that there
is a fatal variance between the unit requested and the unit
for which it is alleged Respondent unlawfully refused to
bargain . I find no merit in this contention . I find that there
is no substantial variance in the units and that the Union's
bargaining request was a valid request for bargaining in
the unit to which the parties subsequently stipulated and
herein found appropriate. 15
Nor do I find any merit in Respondent 's contention that
it had a good -faith doubt of the Union 's majority
representation claim . Sinclair testified that this doubt was
based on his "personal feeling." As previously found, after
the Union's bargaining request, Respondent engaged in a
coercive course of conduct designed to induce the
employees to abandon their support for the Union and
which dissipated the Union 's majority status and
prevented a free choice in the subsequent election. Such
conduct gives rise to this inference , which I herein make,
that Respondent ' s refusal to bargain on and after
September 20, 1965, was not motivated by any good-faith
doubt as to the Union's majority status in an appropriate
bargaining unit but was instead motivated by a desire to
gain time within which to dissipate that majority status.
Joy Silk Mills, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 185 F.2d 732, 737, 741
13 See, e g , Jack Gordon, et al d/b/a Ivy Hill Lithograph Co ,
121 NLRB 831,835
14 Tom Thumb Stores, Inc, 123 NLRB 833, United Butchers
Abattoir, Inc., 123 NLRB 946, 957; Southland Paint Company,
Inc , 156 NLRB 22, and cases there cited; and Owego Street
Supermarkets, Inc., 159 NLRB 1735.
11 See, e g, Edwards Fields, Incorporated, 141 NLRB 1182,
1195, Mid-West Towel & Linen Service, Inc, 143 NLRB 744, 752,
Sabine Vending Co , Inc, 147 NLRB 1010,1011, Hamilton Plastic
Molding Company, 135 NLRB 371, 373, Galloway Manufacturing
Corporation, 136 NLRB 405, Gotham Shoe Manufacturing Co,
149 NLRB 862, 873, and Fleming & Sons of Colorado, Inc, 147
NLRB 1271,1273.
THE SINCLAIR COMPANY
(C.A.D.C.), cert . denied 341 U.S. 914. By such refusal,
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and ( 1) of the Act. 16
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the Respondent's
operations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship 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.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. All journeymen wire weavers of Respondent
employed at its Holyoke, Massachusetts, plant, exclusive
of all other employees, all production and maintenance
employees, service employees, office clerical employees,
guards and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of
the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act.
2. At all times on and after September 20, 1965, the
Union has been, and still is, the exclusive representative of
all the employees within said appropriate unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of
employment, within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
3. By refusing to recognize and bargain with General
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers,
Building Materials, Heavy & Highway Construction
Employees, Local No. 404, an Affiliate of International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, as the exclusive representative
of the employees in the above-described appropriate unit,
the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the
Act.
4. By the foregoing conduct and by threatening
employees with the possible closing of the plant or the
transfer of the weaving production, with the attendant loss
of employment for the wire weavers, if they were to select
the above-named labor organization as their collective-
bargaining representative, in the manner described in
section C, supra, the Respondent has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, I will recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action which will
effectuate the policies of the Act.
18 I find no merit in the procedural contention of counsel for
Respondent that the 8(a)(5) allegation in the complaint is defective
because it fails to contain an affirmative allegation that
Respondent did not have a good-faith doubt of the Union's
majority status when it refused its request for recognition and
bargaining While the burden is on the General Counsel to
establish affirmatively that a good-faith doubt of majority was not
269
Having found that Respondent refused to recognize and
bargain with the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the Act, I will recommend that, upon request,
Respondent recognize and bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive representative of all its employees
in the appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employment and,
if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement. Moreover, I would
recommend the same bargaining order even if the record
had warranted the conclusion, contended for by
Respondent, that it relied on a bona fide doubt of the
Union's majority in refusing to bargain with the Union. As
previously found, the Union represented a clear majority
of the journeymen wire weavers when Respondent began
its unlawful campaign directed at destroying that majority.
To the extent that the election revealed a loss of union
support thereafter, such loss must be found attributable to
the Respondent's unfair labor practices. Therefore,
effectuation of the policies of the Act would still require
such a bargaining order in order properly to remedy
Respondent's other unfair labor practices herein found. 17
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the
entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I
hereby issue the following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Respondent, The Sinclair Company, Holyoke,
Massachusetts, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to recognize and bargain collectively with
General Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers, Building Materials, Heavy & Highway
Construction Employees, Local No. 404, an Affiliate of
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, as the exclusive
representative of its employees in the following
appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours
of employment, and other terms and conditions of
employment:
All journeymen wire weavers of The Sinclair Company
employed at its Holyoke, Massachusetts, plant, exclusive
of all other employees, all production and maintenance
employees, service employees, guards and all supervisors
as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act.
(b) Threatening the employees with the possible closing
of the plant or the transfer of the weaving production, with
the attendant loss of employment, or with any other
economic reprisals, if they were to select the above-
named, or any other, labor organization as their collective-
bargaining representative.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, recognize and bargain collectively
with the above-named labor organization as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the above-described
the reason for Respondent's refusal to bargain , there is no
requirement that the complaint must contain such an allegation
John P Serpa, Inc, 155 NLRB 99 H & W Construction Company,
Inc., 161 NLRB 852 As found in the text, the General Counsel has
satisfied his burden in this case
17 Bryant Chucking Gnnder Company, 160 NLRB 1526
270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other terms and conditions of
employment, and embody in a signed agreement any
understanding reached.
(b) Post at its plant in Holyoke, Massachusetts, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of
said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 1, upon being duly signed by Respondent's
representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(c) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within
20 days from the date of this Decision, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.19
I FURTHER RECOMMEND that the complaint be
dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not
specifically found herein.
I FURTHER RECOMMEND that the election in Case
1-RC-8713, held on December 9, 1965, be set aside.
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 Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall
be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order "
1s In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the
Regional Director for Region 1, in writing, within 10 days from the
date of this Order, what steps 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
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with the
possible closing of the plant or the transfer of the
weaving production, with the attendant loss of
employment, or with any other economic reprisals, if
they were to select General Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers, Building Materials,
Heavy & Highway Construction Employees, Local
No. 404, an Affiliate of International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, or any other labor organization, as their
collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, upon request, recognize and bargain
collectively with the above-named Union as the
exclusive representative of all employees in the
following appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment and embody in a signed agreement any
understanding reached. The bargaining unit is:
All journeymen wire weavers employed at our
Holyoke, Massachusetts, plant, exclusive of all
other employees, all production and maintenance
employees, service employees, guards and all
supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act.
THE SINCLAIR COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions , they may communicate
directly with the Board' s Regional Office, 20th Floor, John
F. Kennedy Federal Building , Cambridge and New
Sudbury Streets, Boston , Massachusetts , Telephone
223-3353.