The Union National Bank

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 1985

276 N.L.R.B. 84 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

84 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Union National Bank of Pittsburgh and United
Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO-CLC Case
6-CA-16932
27 August 1985
DECISION AND ORDER
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
HUNTER AND DENNIS
On 5 February 1985 Administrative Law Judge
Mary Ellen R Benard issued the attached decision
The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting
brief and the General Counsel filed cross excep
tions and a brief in support of its cross exceptions
and in response to the Respondents exceptions
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three
member panel
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge s rulings, fmdmgs i and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order
as modified 2
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge as modified below and orders that the Re
spondent The Union National Bank of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania its officers, agents suc
cessors and assigns shall take the action set forth
in the Order as modified
1 Substitute the following for paragraph 1(a)
"(a) Coercively interrogating employees about
their union activity and support, giving employees
the impression their union activity has been under
surveillance, threatening employees with unspeci
fled reprisals for their union activity, and discrimin
atorily confiscating mail addressed to employees
from the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-
CIO-CLC, or any other labor organization '
2 Substitute the attached notice for that of the
administrative law judge
' Chairman Dotson finds no violation of Sec 8(axl) with respect to
Cleary s conversation with employee Kruse No threat was made in con
nection with Cleary s isolated remarks during the telephone conversation
which was not initiated by Cleary Cleary s questions of whether the tele
phone call was about union activities and whether there was a big
turnout at a cocktail party are simply innocuous under the circum
stances, particularly when Cleary stated that he was only kidding In
view of all the circumstances airman Dotson finds that Rarsmore
House 269 NLRB 1176 ( 1984) affd sub nom Hotel & Restaurant Em
ployees Local 11 v NLRB 760 F 2d 1006 (9th Cur 1985) requires a find
ing that no violation occurred
2 We shall modify par 1(a) of the Order adding the word discnmina
tonly between the words and and confiscating to more closely
conform to the judge s findings We shall issue a new notice to employ
ees reflecting the modified Order
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice
WE WILL NOT coercively question you about
your union support or activities
WE WILL NOT give you the impression your
union activity has been under surveillance
WE WILL NOT threaten you with unspecified re
pnsals for your union activity
WE WILL NOT discriminatorily confiscate mail
addressed to you from the United Steelworkers of
America , AFL-CIO-CLC, or any other labor or
ganization
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with , restrain , or coerce you in the exer
cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of
the Act
WE WILL distribute to those of you employed at
our Cedarhurst Mount Lebanon , and Crossroads
branch offices the letters addressed to you that we
confiscated in November 1983
THE UNION NATIONAL BANK OF
PITTSBURGH
Mary Theresa Enyart Esq of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
for the General Counsel
Robert D Randolph Esq and Mark Hornak Esq (Bu
chanan Ingersoll Professional Corporation) of Pitts
burgh Pennsylvania for the Respondent
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARY ELLEN R BENARD Administrative Law Judge
The original charge in this proceeding was filed on No
vember 22 1983 by United Steelworkers of America
AFL-CIO-CLC (the Union) against The Union Nation
al Bank of Pittsburgh (the Respondent) On January 3
1984 the complaint issued alleging in substance that the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National
Labor Relations Act by creating an impression among its
employees that their union activities were under surveil
lance threatening its employees with unspecified repass
als because of their union activities interrogating its em
ployees regarding their union activities and maintaining
and enforcing a rule prohibiting the distribution of union
literature while permitting the distribution of other liters
lure The Respondent filed an answer in which it denied
the commission of any unfair labor practices
276 NLRB No 13
UNION NATIONAL BANK 85
A hearing was held before me on May 30, 1984, in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Following the hearing the
-General Counsel and the Respondent filed briefs, which
have been considered.'
On the entire record in this case and from my observa-
tion of the witnesses and their demeanor , I make the fol-
lowing
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is a national banking association with
its principal office and place of business in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, 'where it is engaged in consumer and com-
mercial banking . During the 12-month period ending Oc-
tober 31, 1983, the Respondent, in'the course and con-
duct of its business operations , derived gross revenues in
excess of $500,000, transmitted checks valued in excess
of $50,000 to out-of-state banks for collection purposes,
and derived at least $50 ,000 in revenue from investments
made outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The
answer admits and I find that the Respondent is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act, and I further find that it will effectuate the purposes
of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE' LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC is a
labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The Respondent is a bank with its headquarters in
downtown Pittsburgh and approximately 54 branch of-
fices in Pittsburgh and the surrounding area . In Septem-
ber 19832 the Union began an organizing campaign
among the Respondent 's employees , and 'on, September 7,
9, and 16 and on October 5 representatives of the Union
distributed union literature to employees of the Respond-
ent outside the Respondent's main office. The items dis-
tributed included union authorization cards, stamped en-
velopes addressed to the Union , pamphlets about the
Union , and plastic letter openers , bottle caps, and credit
card cases.
B. The Alleged Threats, Interrogation, and Impression
of Surveillance
Employee Allison : Kruse, a clerk in the Respondent's
main-office , credibly testified3 that she received the liter-
ature distributed by the Union and signed and mailed in
an authorization card. In consequence, the Union sent
Kruse a letter to her home address inviting her to a
meeting to be held October 5 at a restaurant near her
office. Kruse attended that meeting , which the employ-
" The General Counsel also filed a motion to correct the transcript,
which the Respondent opposed in part . The General Counsel 's motion is
granted insofar as it is unopposed , but is otherwise demed.
8 All dates hereinafter are 1983 unless otherwise indicated
5 Kruse seemed to be forthright and candid and to exhibit good recol-
lection . I therefore credit her.
ees called a _ cocktail party because hors d'oeuvres and
cocktails were served. However, she testified that the
employees were "paranoid" about others learning of
their support for the Union and that a number of em-
ployees did not go to the union meeting because the res-
taurant where it was held was in clear view of the Re-
spondent's main office and they were afraid of being seen
going there from work.
Kruse further credibly testified that within 2 weeks
after that meeting' she telephoned Mary Ann Fagan, a
friend of hers who also worked, for the Respondent.
Fagan was away from her desk and in consequence her
telephone was answered by Edwin Cleary, Fagan's su-
pervisor and an assistant vice president of the Respond-
ent. According to Kruse, Cleary asked if he could help
her and when she asked if Fagan was there Cleary asked,
"Is this Allison?" Kruse replied that it was and Cleary
inquired if the telephone call was "about union activi-
ties." Kruse responded, "what union?" because she was
"shocked" at the question, and Cleary said , "Aw, come
on now, I'm only kidding: 114 Kruse testified that she then
laughed because she was nervous, and that at that point
Cleary said, "I heard you guys were at a big cocktail
party." Kruse said, "yes," and Cleary asked if there was
a "big turnout." Kruse replied that there was not, be-
cause "everybody- was too paranoid." Cleary replied,
"Well, I' thought so," and then said that Fagan was there
and gave her the telephone.
Kruse testified that although she answered truthfully
whenever she was asked if she had received literature or
signed an authorization card, she did not publicize her
support for the Union"and did not discuss the matter
with any supervisors. Kruse further testified that prior to
this conversation she had not known that any manage-
ment officials were aware of her involvement with the
Union, and that she was concerned about the conversa-
tion with Cleary because she felt that if he knew about
her support for the Union other.. management officials
would know as well and her job would be in jeopardy.
Cleary testified- that he did not recall any telephone
conversation with Kruse in mid-October, that he did not
recall asking the questions or making the- comments
Kruse attributed to him, and that he did not interrogate
her about her union activities.
I credit Kruse rather than Cleary. As noted above, I
found Kruse to be a forthright, credible witness. Cleary,
however, did not impress me -as favorably; he was fre-
quently evasive in response to questions on cross-exami-
nation and in general his testimony did not appear to be
candid or completely truthful. I therefore find that the
incident occurred as Kruse described it.
Kruse also testified that shortly after the conversation
with Cleary described above she had a conversation with
Paul Slater, another of the Respondent's assistant vice
presidents, in an elevator in the building where they both
worked. According,to Kruse, she greeted Slater, who,
after responding in kind, said, "I heard you throwed a
4 The General Counsel 's motion to correct the transcript alleges that at
this point the transcript should read only, "Aw, come on , Al " However,
the Respondent opposed the motion on this point and, as noted above, I
have denied the motion insofar as it was opposed
86 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD -
N
big cocktail party." Kruse replied, "Yeah, I did and I
was dancing on the tables," and then Slater said that he
had heard that "you're causing quite a ruckus" or "quite
-a fuss." Kruse replied that she knew and she "wouldn't
doubt it," and at that point the elevator stopped. As
Kruse .was leaving the elevator, Slater said, "Well, you'd
better watch yourself," Kruse said again that she knew,
and then said , "Good night." -
Slater testified that he did not recall having a conver-
sation with Kruse in an elevator 'in mid-October but that
it was possible that he did. He further testified that, he
did not recall any -conversation with Kruse about a cock-
tail party and that he did not think he would make a
statement such as she attributed to him.
I found Slater to' be less credible than Kruse. He did
not exhibit good' recollection and his assertions that he
did not think he would have'-made the comments to
which Kruse testified 'were not convincing: Accordingly,
I credit Kruse's version of the incident.
B. The Interception of the Union's Letters to
Employees
1. The mailing of letters to employees at branch
offices
The Union did not distribute literature at any of the
Respondent's branch locations, but on November 1 and 2
sent an authorization card, a return envelope , and pam-
phlets to employees at about 49 of the branches. This lit-
erature was mailed first class in - business envelopes
marked "confidential," with no return address or other
indication that they were sent by the Union, and was ad-
dressed to each employee by name and branch location.
Ramon Mundsinger, assistant director of the Union's
office, technical; and professional department, credibly
testified5 that an unidentified person had delivered to the
Union's office a package containing the Respondent's in-
ternal telephone directory. This directory lists each em-
ployee's name and office telephone number, along with a
number, called the "Internal Distribution-Code" or IDC,
which is used by the Respondent to facilitate mail distri-
bution. Mundsinger testified that his secretary had been
advised that it would be helpful to put the employees'
IDC numbers on the envelopes, and that the Union
therefore did so.
-According to 'Mundsinger, a week after the literature
was mailed to the Respondent's branch offices, the
Union received in the mail a document on the Respond-
ent's letterhead, which was addressed "To: All Employ-
ees," dated November 4, and discussed the Union's cam-
paign and the effect of signing authorization cards. This
,document was accompanied by an unsigned typewritten
note, which read as follows:
Why hive -three branches that we know of not
received letters concerning joi[ni]ng the union. Was
told officers were to intercede [sic] the mail. Could
they have signed -employees [sic] names and said no
to joining. Cedarhurst, Mt. Lebanon and Crossroads
- are a few that didn't receive letters. .
Mundsinger further -credibly testified that another repre-
sentative of the Union, Robert McCaffrey, told him that
he had received a telephone call to the effect that the
employees at the Respondent's Cedarhurst, Mt. Lebanon,
and Crossroads branches had not received the Union's
literature.
In consequence, about November 15 the Union mailed
to the employees at these locations a packet comprising
the letter handed out to employees at the Respondent's
main office on September 16, authorization cards, a
return envelope, and two organizing pamphlets. Like the
previous mailing , each envelope was individually ad-
dressed to an employee, included the employee's IDC,
was marked "Confidential," bore first- class postage, and
did not indicate that it was sent by the Union.
2. The Respondent's receipt of the Union' s letters at
the Mount Lebanon, Cedarhurst, and Crossroads
branches
Jack Smith, an assistant vice president of the Respond-
ent and the manager of the Respondent's Mount Leba-
non branch, credibly testified6 that in November there
were two meetings attended by the branch managers and
that at those meetings attorneys retained by the Re-
spondent instructed the branch managers about the union
campaign. - Smith further credibly testified that the
branch managers were told that the Union had sent ma-
terial to employees at some of the branches, that the
managers were to look in the, mail for envelopes coming
from the Union and that, if such letters were received,
they, were to, send them directly to the Respondent's
main -office instead of distributing them to the employees.
Smith testified that envelopes postmarked, 'November
15 and addressed to each of 'the 12 persons who worked
at the Mount Lebanon branch were received at the
branch office, and that he opened the letter addressed to
himself, saw that it was from the Union, and bundled all
the similar envelopes and sent them to the main office.
Smith further testified that he had never' previously inter-
cepted mail addressed to individual employees, nor had
he ever before been instructed to watch for a particular
type of mail or letter and send, any such items to the Re-
spondent's headquarters instead of giving it to the ad-
dressee.
The parties stipulated that essentially the same events
as those to which Smith testified occurred at the Cedar-
hurst and Crossroads branches: i.e., that when the No-
vember 15 letters from the Union addressed to individual
employees were received, the branch- managers opened
the envelopes addressed to themselves, verified that the
material had been sent.by the Union, and then bundled '
all the letters into one batch and sent them to the Re-
spondent's main office. - - -
6 Smith testified as an adverse witness for the General Counsel and ap-
Mundsmger generally appeared to testify forthrightly and with good peared to generally answer questions honestly and to the best of his
recollection , and I have therefore credited his testimony. recollection. I therefore credit him. -
UNION NATIONAL BANK 87
3. The Respondent's policy with respect to mail
addresssed to employees
Smith credibly testified that he was not aware of any
policy of the Respondent that employees receive prior
authorization from their supervisor prior to telling others
their work address or advising others to send them mail
at work. Indeed, Smith also testified that his secretary
usually goes through the incoming mail and that • the
normal policy is for mail addressed to specific employees
to be given to them unopened.
Kruse testified that she has received personal mail at
work and that in some cases the sender had included her
IDC number in the address, and that she had never been
told by anyone from management that only individuals
employed by the Respondent were permitted to use the
IDC numbers. Kruse further testified that sometimes per-
sonnel in the Respondent's mailroom mark letters with
the appropriate IDC number.
Joseph Doerr, the Respondent's assistant vice presi-
dent for the human resources department, testified that
the Respondent's internal telephone directory is to be
used' exclusively' by the Respondent's employees, who
are not authorized to distribute it to anyone else. Doerr
further testified that appearance of an IDC number on a
piece of mail would indicate that the item, was internal
correspondence. However, Kruse's testimony about the
use of the IDC's on mail emanating from outside the
bank was uncontradicted and, significantly, there is no
indication in the Respondent's telephone directory itself
that it is to be used only by the Respondent's .personnel.
Further, there is no evidence that employees were ever
advised that the Respondent's telephone directory should
be considered an internal, confidential document.
C. The Agency Status of Cleary, Slater, and the
Branch Managers
The complaint alleges that Cleary, Slater, and the
managers of the Respondent's Crossroads, Cedarhurst,
and Mount Lebanon branches are supervisors within the
meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and agents of the
Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the
Act. The Respondent admits that all these individuals are
supervisors, but alleged in its answer to the complaint
that it was without sufficient knowledge or information
to form a belief as to whether they are agents.
Smith testified that he directs the work of the employ-
ees at the Mount Lebanon office and that the employees
come to him with questions or problems relating to their
work. As discussed above, Smith also testified? that he,
along with other branch managers, attended two meet-
ings at .which they were given instructions relating to the
union campaign, and that he acted in accordance with
the instructions he had received at those' meetings from
attorneys retained by, the Respondent when he sent the
letters from the Union to the Respondent's main office
instead of distributing them to the employees.
° The parties stipulated that the managers of the Cedarhurst and Cross-
roads branches have essentially the same function, duties, and responsibil-
ities as Smith's, and that those branch managers, like Smith, acted'on the
advice of counsel in sending the Union's letters to employees to the Re-
spondent 's main office
Slater and Cleary both testified that as part of their re-
sponsibilities they evaluate the employees under their su-
pervision and, make recommendations •as to the amount
of the salary increase the employees should receive, and
that sometime in late 1983 they each held a meeting with
their respective staffs to discuss the Respondent's re-
sponse to the Union's organizing campaign. Cleary and
Slater further credibly testified that those meetings were
conducted pursuant to a memorandum to all supervisors
from the Respondent's human resources department, and
were held to discuss a memorandum to the employees
from the Respondent's then president and executive vice
president,about the Union's campaign. The memorandum
to the supervisors instructed them to, inter alia, "take the
time to discuss the memorandum [to employees] with
each employee and to answer any and all questions that
may arise." The memorandum to employees referred to
the Union's mailings to the branch offices, and advised
the employees that "[a]s always, your supervisor is avail-
able to answer all your questions-particularly those the
union doesn't like to answer."
In these circumstances, it is clear that, the Respondent
held out to employees that their supervisors, including
Cleary, Slater, and the branch managers, were in a posi-
tion to act and speak for the Respondent with respect to
the Union's organizing efforts, and I therefore find that
all these individuals were agents' of 'the Respondent
within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act."
D. Analysis and ^ Conclusions '
1. The conduct of Cleary and Slater
a.. The conversation with Cleary
The General Counsel contends that Cleary's questions
of Kruse as to the purpose of her telephone call to Fagan
and the number of employees who attended the Union's
meeting were coercive. The Respondent, however,
argues that the Board's decision in Rossmore House, '269
NLRB 1176 (1984), requires a finding that Cleary's ques-
tions were not unlawful.
In Rossmore House, the Board held that it would not
find "an employer's questioning open and active- union
supporters about their union sentiments, in the absence of
threats or promises, necessarily interferes with, 'restrains,
or coerces employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1)",of
the Act."9 The Board noted, however, that various fac-
tors may be considered in determining whether an inter-
rogation is unlawful, and that these 'factors include: "(1)
the background; (2) the nature of the information sought;
(3) the identity of the questioner; and (4) the place and
method of the interrogation," and that the test to be ap-
plied is "whether under all the circumstances the interro-
gation reasonably tends to 'restrain, coerce, or interfere
with rights guaranteed by the Act." i °
I find that Cleary's questions of Kruse were unlawful.
First; it is clear from Kruse's testimony that she was not
an "open 'and active" union supporter in the sense that
8 See Quality Drywall Co, 254 NLRB 617, 620 (1981)
8 Id at 1177-78.
'o Id at 1178 fn 20
88 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Board used the term in Rossmore House Second
consideration of the factors listed by the Board in that
decision demonstrates that in the circumstances the ques
tions would reasonably tend to interfere with Kruse s
protected right to engage in union activity Thus the
questions occurred against a background of employee
concern that management would learn who supported
the Union and although Kruse testified that she was a
little bit more open than most of the employees there
she nonetheless avoided talking about the Union with
any supervisors or talking about the Union when she
could be seen by supervisors With respect to the type of
information sought Clearys first question sought mfor
mation as to Kruse s involvement with the Union i
while his second appeared to be an attempt to ascertain
the level of support the Union enjoyed among the em
ployees as well as to learn whether Kruse had attended
the meeting or knew what had occurred there Further
it is clear from the record that Kruse knew of Cleary s
supervisory status and had reason to believe that her
own supervisor would learn of her support for the
Union Finally the conversation was not anticipated by
Kruse or initiated by her occurred at work and Cleary
gave no indication of any legitimate reason for his ques
tions and did not provide Kruse with any assurance that
no reprisals would be taken against her In light of all
these circumstances I conclude that the questions violat
ed Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 12
The General Counsel also alleges that Cleary s coin
ments that he had heard about the Union s meeting and
that he had thought that the turnout would be low gave
the impression of surveillance of employees union activi
ty and therefore violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act The
Respondent argues that these comments were a passing
reference to the union activity and as such not unlaw
ful
Although the issue is not free from doubt I am con
strained to agree with the General Counsel As noted
above the conversation was not initiated by Kruse and
Cleary gave no reason for his repeated comments about
the Union Further in the same conversation Cleary un
lawfully questioned Kruse In these circumstances I find
that Cleary s remarks were not merely a passing refer
ence to the meeting but instead both advised Kruse that
he knew of her attendance at the meeting and sought
more information from her about it and that by telling
her he had heard about the meeting and that he had
thought not many employees would attend he unlawful
ly gave the impression of surveillance of the employees
union activities
11 It is noteworthy that there is no evidence as to whether either
Kruse or Fagan was supposed to be working at the time Kruse made the
telephone call or that as of this time the Respondent had any rule prohib-
iting employees from discussing union or other nonwork matters during
the time they were supposed to be working Kruse testified that she had
been told not to discuss the Union on the Respondents telephones, but
there is no evidence as to who gave her this advice
iz Cleary s comment that he was only kidding does not negate the
coercive nature of his questions for after making that remark he contra
ued to ask Kruse about the union activity which indicates that he was
not kidding at all
b The conversation with Slater
The General Counsel contends that Slater s remarks to
Kruse that he had heard that you had a party and was
causing quite a ruckus or fuss and that she had
better watch herself gave the impression of surveil
lance of her union activity and threatened her with re
pnsal for that activity I agree
Slater s comment to Kruse clearly indicated that he
was aware of her activity and his reference to a
ruckus or fuss especially in conjunction with his
warning to her to watch herself suggested that her in
volvement with the Union was improper and that she
might suffer some harm in consequence I therefore find
that Slater s comments both gave Kruse the impression
of surveillance of her union activity and threatened some
unspecified reprisal for that activity and therefore violat
ed Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
2 The interception of the employees mail
The General Counsel alleges that the action of the
managers of the Mount Lebanon Cedarhurst and Cross
roads branches in sending the Union s letters to the Re
spondent s main office instead of distributing them to the
employees to whom they were addressed was tanta
mount to implementation of a discriminatory no distribu
tion rule and therefore violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act The Respondent on the other hand contends that
the Union had other means of access to the employees
and that by using the Respondents IDC numbers the
Union in effect made the Respondent its delivery service
The Respondent further argues that once the Respondent
was aware of the contents of the Union s letters particu
larty the authorization cards delivery of such materials
on the Respondents time and using its personnel would
amount to assistance to the Union in its organizational
drive and would therefore violate Section 8(a)(2) of the
Act Thus according to the Respondent not only was it
justified in refusing to deliver the letters to the employ
ees its action in this regard was necessary to avoid com
mitting an unfair labor practice
As discussed above the record does not support a
finding that the Respondents telephone directory was
confidential or that employees identified the use of IDC
numbers on mail with internal correspondence Accord
ingly it is clear that the mere use of those numbers by
the Union did not cause employees to think that the Re
spondent endorsed or was in any way responsible for the
literature sent by the Union
I also find no merit to the contention that the distribu
tion of the letters to the employees would have exposed
the Respondent to liability for unlawfully assisting the
Union The one time distribution of mail to employees13
cannot be said to constitute unlawful assistance particu
larly where as here the letters were sent directly to the
branch offices and were not even sorted in the Respond
ent s mailroom Further the record is quite clear that
employees frequently received personal mail at the
IS In this regard it is noteworthy that Kruse testified that after she
sent her authorization card to the Union the Union sent further corre
spondence to her home address
UNION NATIONAL BANK 89
office and that there was no policy prohibiting them
from doing so Thus there can be no doubt that the Re
spondent discriminatorily confiscated mail sent by the
Union while permitting employees to receive other mail
at their workplace Having so found I conclude that by
this conduct the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act
On the basis of the above findings of fact and the
entire record in this case I make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 The Union National Bank of Pittsburgh is an em
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec
tion 2(2) (6), and (7) of the Act
2 United Steelworkers of America AFL-CIO-CLC is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act
3 By coercively interrogating employees about their
union activity and support giving employees the impres
sion that their union activity has been under surveillance
threatening employees with unspecified reprisals for their
union activity and confiscating mail addressed to em
ployees from the Union the Respondent has violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer
tam unfair labor practices I shall recommend that it be
ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the purposes of
the Act
Having found that the Respondent unlawfully confis
cated mail sent to employees by the Union I find merit
to the General Counsels request that the Respondent be
ordered to distribute the confiscated letters to the em
ployees to whom they were addressed
I shall further recommend that the Respondent be or
dered to post the usual notice Because the Respondent s
unfair labor practices occurred not only at its main office
but at three of its branches and because the Respond
ent s letter to employees about the Union s mailings to
the branch offices was distributed to all employees I will
recommend that the Respondent be ordered to post the
notice at all its offices not only those where the unfair
labor practices occurred
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record I issue the following recommend
ed14
ORDER
The Respondent The Union National Bank of Pitts
burgh Pittsburgh Pennsylvania its officers agents suc
cessors and assigns, shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Coercively interrogating employees about their
union activity and support giving employees the impres
sion that their union activity has been under surveillance
threatening employees with unspecified reprisals for their
union activity and confiscating mail addressed to em
ployees from the Union
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with re
straining or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act
2 Take the following affirmative action designed to of
fectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Distribute the letters which it unlawfully confiscat
ed in November 1983 to the employees to whom they
were addressed
(b) Post at all of its offices copies of the attached
notice marked Appendix 15 Copies of the notice on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 6
after being signed by the Respondents authorized repre
sentative shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices
are not altered defaced or covered by any other maten
al
(c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re
spondent has taken to comply
14 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board s
Rules and Regulations, the findings conclusions and recommended
Order shall as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur
poscs15 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of
Appeals, the words in the notice reading Posted by Order of the Na
tional Labor Relations Board shall read Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation
al Labor Relations Board