Triggs-Miner Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1969

180 N.L.R.B. 206 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Triggs-Miner Corporation and International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW) and
Independent Workers of Owosso , Party of Interest.
Case 7-CA-7090
December 16, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND ZAGORIA
On July 14, 1969, Trial Examiner Anne F.
Schlezinger issued her Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision,
and the Charging Party filed cross-exceptions with a
supporting brief.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to
a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions,
cross-exceptions, and brief, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner, as modified herein.
The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
threats, coercive interrogation , and promises of
benefit to employees on several occasions between
September 12, 1968, and January 13, 1969. We also
find merit in the Charging Party's exception to the
Trial Examiner's failure to find additional threats
violative of Section 8(a)(1) by Supervisor Bruce
Kobe on April 18, 1969. The essentially undisputed
evidence reveals that on the morning of April 18,
1969, Kobe, learning of employee Harrison's
impending testimony at the hearing herein , accused
her of "starting the whole thing," stated that he
would get even with her , and threatened that he
"would go to court" and say that she was insane
and "was running around the parking lot with no
clothes on ." That afternoon , the record reveals,
Kobe threatened Harrison by saying , in reference to
the hearing , that her "goose was cooked," and
'We deny the Charging Party' s motion to dismiss Respondent's
exceptions because of noncompliance with Sec. 102 46, Board Rules, Series
8, as amended , since the exceptions are in substantial compliance with the
Board ' s Rules.
reiterated the threats made that morning.
We also agree with the Trial Examiner that the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(2) by dominating
and interfering with the administration of "Shop
Employees," and dominating and interfering with
the formation and administration of its successor,
the Independent Workers of Owosso, and by
contributing financial and other support to both
organizations of its employees.
As found by the Trial Examiner, the Charging
Party represented a majority of Respondent's
employees in an appropriate unit when it demanded
recognition on November 26, 1968.2 Respondent
refused to bargain on December 2, 1968. The Trial
Examiner rejected the Respondent's contentions that
it had a good-faith doubt of the Charging Party's
majority status, and that it was not required to
bargain with the Charging Party because the
Regional Director had dismissed two petitions and
an unfair labor practice charge against the
Independent, filed by the Charging Party. Instead,
the Trial Examiner found, in view of Respondent's
8(a)(1) and (2) conduct described above, that it was
motivated by a desire to gain time to dissipate the
Charging Party's majority, to preclude it from
obtaining an election by maintaining contract
relations with a dominating organization, and to
make a fair election an unlikely possibility. The
Trial Examiner therefore recommended a bargaining
order.3
We agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusions,
but we do not rely, as a predicate for finding an
8(a)(5) violation, on the Trial Examiner's finding
that Respondent did not act in good faith in refusing
to bargain with the Union as the majority
representative of its employees in an appropriate
unit. In our opinion, Respondent's extensive
violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (2), as summarized
above, were of a kind tending to undermine the
Union's majority, and were of such pervasive and
aggravated character as to warrant an order
directing the Respondent to bargain with the
Charging Party to repair their unlawful effect. The
aforementioned conduct not only prevented a fair
election but because of the nature and consequence
of certain of such conduct (i.e., entering into a
contract with a dominated union, a contract which
served under our rules to bar the election petitions
filed by the Charging Party) actually precluded the
holding of any election at all at the time of the
'We find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that there were 178
employees in the appropriate unit. We also find that a majority of these
employees signed valid cards designating the Charging Party as their
representative We find it unnecessary to pass on the authenticity of the
cards allegedly signed by Joann M Good , Shirley Smalley, and Sue
Zlomak, and therefore do not rely on them However , we do count
Timothy J . Olson 's card since the original is in evidence, the date on it is
clearly legible , and it was signed before November.26, 1968.
'We find no merit in the Charging Party's exception to the Trial
Examiner's failure to provide in her recommended remedy for the
disposition of money donated by Respondent as an "employee benefit
fund," since it is deemed that , the usual remedy for 8(aX2) violations,
provided herein , is sufficient to remedy the unfair labor practices found
180 NLRB No. 39
TRIGGS-MINER CORP.
Charging Party' s original demand for recognition as
well as during the pendency of this proceeding. We
find in these circumstances that the signed cards by
which the employees designated the Charging Party
to represent them provide a more reliable guide to
the employees' true choice than would an election.
We further find that application now of traditional
remedies cannot restore the conditions as they
existed at the time the Charging Party attained its
majority and made its bargaining demand and that
only a bargaining order will prevent Respondent
from reaping the benefits of its unfair labor
practices.' We conclude accordingly, that by refusing
the Charging Party 's request and engaging in the
aforesaid unfair labor practices, Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5), and that to effectuate the policies of
the Act an order requiring the Respondent to
recognize and bargain with the Charging Party is
required to remedy its violation of that section, as
well as to remedy the other unfair labor practices
found.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
hereby orders that Respondent Triggs-Miner
Corporation, Owosso, Michigan, its officers , agents,
successors, and assigns , shall take the actions set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
'N.L.R.B. v. L. B. Foster . 418 F.2d I (C.A. 9).
'N.L R B. v. Gisse! Packing Co . Inc.. 395 U .S. 575.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ANNE F. SCHLEZINGER, Trial Examiner: Upon charges
filed on December 19, 1968, by International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW), referred to
herein as the Charging Party' or the UAW, the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the
Regional Director for Region 7 (Detroit, Michigan),
issued a complaint dated February 28, 1969. The
complaint alleges that Triggs-Miner Corporation, referred
to herein as the Respondent, has engaged in unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (5) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended. In its answer,
duly filed, the Respondent admits certain facts set forth in
the complaint, but denies that it has engaged in any unfair
labor practices.
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held before me at
Owosso, Corunna, and Flint, Michigan , on April 21 and
22 and May 12, 1969. All parties other than Independent
Workers of Owosso, herein referred to as the
Independent, appeared at the hearing and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses , and to introduce relevant
evidence. Subsequent to the hearing, the General Counsel
'On the third day of the hearing, Mr Cross entered an appearance for
Stanley Lubin, Esq., Detroit , Michigan , who did not attend the hearing.
207
and the Respondent filed briefs which have been fully
considered=
Upon the entire record in this case and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is a corporation duly organized under,
and existing by virtue of, the laws of the State of
Michigan. Until on or about January 1, 1969, the
Respondent maintained its only office and place of
business in Owosso, Michigan, herein called the Owosso
plant. Subsequent to that time, the Respondent has
maintained its principal office and place of business in
Corunna, Michigan, herein called the Corunna plant. The
Respondent has been at all times material herein engaged
in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of electrical wire
harnesses, aluminum doors and windows, and related
products, at the Owosso and Corunna.plants, the only
facilities involved in this proceeding.
During the year ending December 31, 1968, which
period is representative of its operations during all times
material herein, the Respondent purchased goods and
materials valued in excess of $50,000 which were delivered
to its Owosso and Corunna plants directly from points
located outside the State of Michigan, and it
manufactured, sold, and distributed products valued in
excess of $50,000 which were shipped from said plants
directly to points located outside the State of Michigan.
The Respondent in its answer admits, and I find, that it is
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
I find, as the complaint alleges and the Respondent's
answer admits, that International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW), and the "Shop Employees"
and its successor, Independent Workers of Owosso, are
labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The issues in this proceeding are whether the
Respondent (A) dominated and interfered with the
administration of the "Shop Employees" and dominated
and interfered with the formation and administration of
the Independent, and contributed financial and other
support to both organizations, in violation of Section
8(a)(2); (B) refused to bargain with the UAW in violation
of Section 8(a)(5); and (C) interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of their Section 7
rights by the above conduct and by coercive interrogation,
warnings , and the promise and grant of benefits, in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
'The caption of the General Counsel 's brief, apparently inadvertently,
omits the name of the Independent The caption of the Respondent's
answer names a union other than the Charging Party . This was apparently
also inadvertent as the answer shows that it was served on the Charging
Party, and the caption of the Respondent's brief correctly identi fies the
Charging Party.
208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A The 8(a)(2) Issues
1. The "Shop Employees"
The record does not show when the "Shop Employees,"
admitted by the Respondent to be a labor organization,
came into being.' The organization was referred to in
various ways by employee witnesses, one of whom, Betty
Matthews, testified that it had no name but "was just the
shop union." An agreement dated March 15, 1968,
however, has the heading: "This Agreement entered into
between Triggs-Miner Corporation and its `Shop
Employees' shall include all hourly-rated personnel." The
agreement sets forth provisions covering working
conditions and provides that it shall be in effect for 2
years. It is signed for management by President Byrel
Triggs, Vice President Darrell Triggs, and Vice President
Herschel Miner, and by "Shop Representatives" Patricia
Devereaux, Wilma Smith, and Patricia Onstott. Miner,
who was also the personnel director, asked Betty
Matthews to serve in place of Devereaux, who was on sick
leave from June 7 to October 21, 1968.' Matthews agreed,
and a notice was posted on the plant bulletin board
showing this change. During the period Matthews served
as a representative, she attended 4 or 5 meetings , and was
paid for the time she spent at these meetings. Miner
notified her at her machine of the meetings, which were
held in his office, and he attended and participated in
them. Smith also attended the meetings but Onstott, who
worked on a later shift, generally did not. There is no
provision in the agreement for such meetings. While the
execution of the agreement and Miner's designation of
Matthews as a representative occurred prior to the 10(b)
period, the meetings were held within that period.
Betty Matthews signed a UAW card on September 11,
1968. On September 12, as she testified credibly and
without contradiction, she was called from her machine
into an office by Miner, who "asked me if the UAW had
contacted me, and I told him yes and he asked me how I
felt about it, and I told him I was chairman for the UAW
last year and I felt the same way this year." On Monday,
September 16, Matthews was called into a meeting in the
office of President Triggs Also present were Vice
President Triggs, Miner, Foreman Jakeway,' and both
Smith and Onstott They discussed a political button
Matthews was wearing, employee turnover, a wage
increase, and, as Matthews testified, "we got our raise and
they told us to go out and tell the girls in the shop we got
a raise."6 The hourly rate was set at $2.10 with an
increase of 8 cents after 30 days; Matthews was increased
thereby from 1.80 to 2.18 an hour. This meeting ran from
3.30 to about 5. Matthews, whose regular hours were 7
a.m. to 3:30, was paid at the time-and-a-half overtime rate
for attendance at this meeting. On September 23,
Matthews, as requested by Miner at her machine, signed a
paper "to authorize for the raise to go on the contract
there."
The record shows that employees never signed
membership cards or other indicia of membership in the
'As the General Counsel ' s brief points out, evidence as to conduct
relating to the "Shop Employees" which occurred prior to the 10(b) period
may be considered as background.
'Miner, who was no longer with the Respondent at the time of the
hearing, did not testify.
'None of the management representatives present at this meeting
testified
'They were not directed to announce that , as discussed below , a monthly
attendance bonus was discontinued when the wage increase was granted
"Shop Employees," and that the "Shop Employees" never
collected dues. Moreover, as Matthews testified, the
organization had no constitution or bylaws, owned no
property, had no bank account, held no meetings with the
employees, and maintained no books and records of any
type.
2. The Independent
Miner had the wage supplement showing the increase
executed by the "Shop Employees" representatives on
September 23, 1968. The Respondent also executed a
Memorandum of Agreement bearing the same date with
"Independent Workers of Owosso" which stated that the
Independent represented the majority of hourly rated
employees, and that the parties agreed to incorporate and
be bound by the March 15 agreement and the September
23 wage supplement. The wage supplement was signed by
Byrel and Darrell Triggs and by Miner for the
Respondent, and by "Shop Representatives" Smith,
Onstott, and Matthews as alternate for Devereaux,
whereas the agreement with the Independent was signed
only by Darrell Triggs for the Respondent and by
Devereaux, with no title indicated, for the Independent.
There is no explanation of her signature although, as
noted above, Devereaux was on sick leave at that time
until October 21, 1968. There is also no explanation of
what disposition was made of the "Shop Employees," who
authorized the successorship or chose the new name, or
how Devereaux acquired the authority to execute an
agreement on behalf of the Independent.
Miner continued to play a leading role in the
Independent as he did with its predecessor. For example,
he decided, after the agreement had been signed with
Devereaux as the sole representative of the Independent,
that the Independent should have officers. Thus Onstott
testified credibly and without contradiction that on about
October 15, 1968, when she was employed on the second
shift, Miner telephoned her at home in the morning and
offered her a choice of offices in the Independent. She
told him she did not want any of them as she was satisfied
just to be a committeewoman. When Miner insisted,
however, Onstott agreed to be treasurer. Miner then
commented that there were no money matters, and
Onstott said that was why she made this choice. Miner
replied, "okay now you are secretary-treasurer." He then
sought Onstott's views as to whether Devereaux or Smith
would make the better president, but Onstott maintained
that she had no preference. Miner then asked if Onstott
had any complaints as the committeewoman for the
second shift. She had one, which they discussed, and this
concluded the conversation. Onstott served as
secretary-treasurer of the Independent until December
1968. On December 5, the Respondent's personnel
department issued a notice, signed by Miner, addressed to
all employees, headed "SUBJECT: TRIGGS MINER &
INDEPENDENT WORKERS OF OWOSSO," which
stated:
Your Representatives are as follows:
DAY SHIFT
Pat Devereaux (President)
Wilma Smith (V. President)
NIGHT SHIFT
John Begley (Sect'y Treas.)
TRIGGS-MINER CORP. 209
The record does not reveal how or when these
"Representatives" were selected, or how Miner's question
as to whether Devereaux or Smith would make the better
president was thus resolved. On December 13, a
supplement to the March 15 agreement providing for
call-in pay was executed for the Independent by these
"Representatives."
The Independent, like its predecessor, had no
headquarters outside the Respondent's premises.' Further,
the Respondent not only continued to assist the
Independent in various ways as it had the "Shop
Employees," but it greatly increased its financial
contributions. The Respondent, since March 15, 1968,
when the agreement with the "Shop Employees" was
executed, had maintained an account relative to an
employee benefit fund, apparently made up of
commissions paid by Canteen Service Company on
food-vending machines it had in the plant. Periodic notices
were posted on the bulletin board showing the
disbursements and the balance in this fund. This continued
until, as the parties agreed at the hearing, the balance of
$405.26 in this fund was turned over to the Independent
on January 29, 1969. In addition, beginning in December
1968, Canteen Service Company began sending its checks
directly to the Independent which, as stated in the
Respondent's answer, has since "exercised full control and
use of said funds." The Independent at the time of the
hearing had received from Canteen Service Company
checks in the amounts of $34.30, 13.83, 8.36, and 169.24,
which with the benefit fund balance represented the total
income of the Independent. Further, as the Respondent
admitted, on or about January 13, 1969, at the request of
the Independent, it provided and paid for the printing on
the Respondent's letterhead stationery of copies of the
March 15 agreement, as supplemented and amended,
which were distributed to the employees on about January
30 by Devereaux.
Devereaux prepared a petition at home early in January
1969 bearing the following caption:
We the undersigned employees are members of the
Independent Workers of Owosso. We the undersigned
are employees of the Triggs Miner Corporation of
Corunna, Michigan.
We hereby certify that we are represented by the
Independent Workers of Owosso, of which Mrs. Pat
Devereaux is now president. It is our wish to continue
to be represented by the Independent Workers of
Owosso, and we have no desire to be represented by
any other union.
She circulated the petition in the plant and obtained 69
signatures, all dated January 6 to 9. She testified that she
thought there were additional members of the Independent
but "wouldn't know for sure."
On January 13, employee Nina Harrison, who had
asked to see Miner, was told she could do so at I1 a.m.
She found Devereaux and Smith also present. Harrison
asked why the Respondent had discontinued the bonus
previously granted when an employee did not miss a day
for a month. Miner stated that the bonus was
discontinued because of the "substantial raise we had, he
didn't feel a bonus was right." When Harrison asked who
voted the bonus down, Miner replied that "the girls voted
it down, the representatives and that they had a right to
'The formal papers in this proceeding , including the Respondent's
answer, were served on the Independent addressed c/o the Respondent at
Its Corunna plant.
vote anything down."8 Harrison also questioned why
Devereaux held two offices, committeewoman and
president, and said the girls were "irate" about this.
Miner replied that the girls had voted for her, and when
Harrison said they voted for Devereaux for
committeewoman but not for president, he merely
repeated that they had voted for her. The two
committeewomen made no comment about these matters.
Smith did mention that Devereaux had ordered cards and
paid for them out of her own pocket, whereupon Miner
said "she had the check book and to write herself a check
for this amount." As Harrison testified further: "It was
then brought up about Livinski presumed to have given a
statement to the National Labor Relations Board and Mr.
Miner couldn't understand why, and he said after all the
Company had done, we had received a big raise, we had
our own union, and we had the funds from the canteen
machines for anything we wanted to use them for, union
business, flowers, gifts and so on, and he looked at his
watch and said it was close to eleven-thirty and he had a
meeting and would have to cut this meeting short, and I
told him if things didn't straighten out that the UAW
would get in regardless, and he said if they did they
wouldn't be in long."
How the Independent came into being was vague even
to the active participants. Devereaux testified that she did
not remember when she became president of the
Independent but thought it was in October or November
of 1968. She continued to serve also as a
committeewoman although there was continuing employee
opposition to her dual role. Employee Eleanor Kenyon
began circulating a petition in early February seeking the
removal of Devereaux as president, but, as Donna
Sprague testified, she overheard Foreman Jenkins tell
Kenyon on February 10: "I don't want to see any more
petitions out in the plant. I am going to tear them up. The
election tomorrow should take care of that."' In contrast,
a notice signed only "Pat Devereaux," announcing a
meeting of all hourly employees at 3.30 on February 11
"at the lunch tables," was posted on about February 5
with no employer opposition.' ° Devereaux, who resigned
as president, testified that some correspondence and a
check book were the only records of the Independent she
had, that "I turned it over to John - I can't even
remember his last name now," and that she in fact turned
the material over to a girl who worked in the office and
asked this girl to give it to John.
Employee Max Fuller testified that at a meeting
(presumably the one held on February 11) at which about
80 were present, all agreed that they should nominate
people and that the ones with the most votes would be
president, treasurer, and secretary respectively. He also
testified that the election was held on the day Devereux
resigned as president. Although Foreman Jenkins advised
some of the girls prior to the election they could vote by
hand, the girls did not agree, and the election was by
written ballot. During the election, the door to the quality
control room was open and Foreman Jenkins and
Jakeway came out once or twice and then returned to the
quality control room.
The March 15, 1968, agreement provides "Any employee with a perfect
attendance record for a full month will receive an additional five cents
(05) per hour worked for that month as a special bonus " The wage
supplement of September 23 voided this provision
'Foreman Jenkms did not testify.
"The Respondent 's answer states that "Miner did post any items on the
Bulletin Board, at the request of the Independent Workers of Owosso "
210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Fuller, who was nominated by Devereaux, got the most
votes, with Donna Sprague and Larry Pryor next highest
of the approximately 6 or 7 who Fuller testified were
"nominated as committee people." Fuller, who became
president, suggested that Pryor "take care of the check
book" and Sprague "take care of the correspondence."
They agreed, so Pryor became treasurer and Sprague
secretary. Sprague resigned this office after about 2 weeks
for health reasons, and was succeeded by Janice Mallory.
The record does not show how Mallory was selected.
Pryor testified that he had been treasurer of the
Independent since "February something" of 1969, and
that his predecessor as treasurer was Devereaux. As he
testified, his duties as treasurer were to deposit the
Canteen Service Company checks in the bank, and to
write checks for items such as flowers and gifts for which
the employees voted. He also gave a check for $10.97 to
Devereaux to reimburse her for the cards she had had
printed which, he testified, "stated Independent Workers
of Owosso, or something of that kind, something like
that." There is no evidence that employees had previously
signed cards for the Independent nor that they signed the
printed cards obtained by Devereaux.
On March 11, about 3:30, there was a meeting in the
lunch area of the plant. Donna Sprague testified that
25-30 employees were present; that Fuller said he wanted
dues taken out of the pay checks - he did not know how
much or how it would be done but he did not want the
organization supported by canteen funds. The question of
how to do it was deferred. The record does not show that
dues were thereafter paid to the Independent.
Fuller also prepared a notice addressed to members of
the Independent which stated in part as follows:
The attendance at our union meetings have been so
low that it is actually insulting to your committee
members and to those members who do attend. You
have always griped about not having meetings to
know what is going on and to discuss membership
matters . .
Your union and your representatives have an
obligation to it's members against management for fair
practice and to uphold it's contract (such as it is) ....
So I say to you now, that I am not only recommending
but demanding that management give the person or
persons who harrass another member and causes it to
be intolerable to work with them . . . a week off from
work and if it happens again the second time that we
desolve that person or persons membership in our union
and that they then be discharged from the company
because they are no more a member .... [sic]
Fuller testified as to this notice that "I put one on the
board and I gave one to Mr. Breeden and one to the plant
superintendent." The notice bears, in addition to Fuller's
signature as president of the Independent, the handwritten
names of "Vern Jenkins" and "Dan Breeden" but the
record does not show whether these were signatures."
3. Findings and conclusions
The undisputed evidence shows that Miner, a
management official, controlled the operations and
functions of the "Shop Employees." He notified
committee members at their work places of meetings,
which were held in his office or in the president's office,
and he attended and participated in the meetings.
Committee members were paid at their regular or
overtime rates for the time spent at these meetings. Miner
interrogated Matthews about UAW activity the day after
she signed a UAW card, and learned that she was again
supporting the UAW organizing campaign. A few days
later, Matthews and the other representatives of the
"Shop Employees" were called into the president's office,
a substantial wage increase was granted, and the
representatives were directed to spread the word about
this increase in the plant. They were not directed to
announce the discontinuance of the attendance bonus. To
do so would have detracted from the effectiveness of the
wage increase announcement in demonstrating the benefits
of representation by the "Shop Employees." Or Miner
may not yet have decided that, in view of the wage
increase "he didn't feel a bonus was right," as he told
Harrison in the conversation in which he expressed
surprise that employees would give statements to the
Board when the Respondent had given them such a
substantial raise, their own union, and other generous
contributions.
In addition, the evidence shows that the "Shop
Employees" was wholly dependent financially on the
Respondent as it collected no dues, had no bank account,
owned no property, and had no headquarters other than
the Respondent's plant. It assumed no clear-cut
organizational form as it had no constitution or by-laws
and maintained no books or records. There is no
indication that the "Shop Employees" ever had an
election of representatives, ever held its own meetings, or
ever held meetings with the employees it purportedly
represented. Finally, there is no evidence that the "Shop
Employees" ever obtained signed cards or any other
indicia of its selection as the representative of the
employees. On the basis of the foregoing and the entire
record, I find that the "Shop Employees," although it
came into being and had an agreement executed prior to
the Section 10(b) cutoff date, is shown by the evidence to
have been a labor organization that did not function
independently, that existed only by the grace of the
Respondent, and that was "unable to maintain its
exclusive representative status and carry out its functions
without the Respondent's unlawful support and assistance
which had continued into the 10(b) period."'r
Miner exercised even greater control of the
organization and functions of the Independent than he had
of the "Shop Employees." It is apparent that, as a result,
the Independent functioned not as an organization chosen
by and representing the interests of the employees, but as
an instrumentality of the Respondent, to carry out its
policies and to thwart the continuing efforts of the
employees who were organizing the UAW. There is a
clear inference from all the evidence, and I find, that it
was not the employees but the Respondent which
formalized the descriptive designation of the "Shop
Employees" into the title of "Independent Workers of
Owosso," and determined the format of the successor
organization . The Respondent also selected the original
officers and representatives, and interfered when at a later
point the Independent scheduled and held an election.
Further, the Independent, like its predecessor, had no
constitution or bylaws, obtained no signed cards or other
indicia of membership, had no headquarters other than
the Respondent's plant, and was entirely dependent upon
the Respondent for financial support. Finally, the
Respondent, after it established the Independent, granted
"Breeden , executive vice president and general manager of the
Respondent, was present throughout the hearing but did not testify. "Arden Furniture Industries . 164 NLRB No. 159, fn. 4.
TRIGGS-MINER CORP.
it exclusive recognition in the absence of any evidence that
this represented the desires of a majority of the unit
employees" and at a time when the UAW, as the
Respondent was aware, was organizing its employees.
While the original agreement with the "Shop Employees,"
to which the successor Independent fell heir, was executed
prior to the Section 10(b) cutoff date, the Respondent was
not warranted by this fact in assuming and exercising
during the Section 10(b) period such complete control of
both of the organizations purporting to represent its
employees. Accordingly, I find, upon the entire record,
that the Respondent dominated and interfered with the
administration of the "Shop Employees" and dominated
and interfered with the formation and administration of
the Independent, and contributed financial and other
support to both organizations, in violation of Section
8(a)(2) and (I) of the Act.' °
B. The 8(a)(5) Issues
1. The appropriate unit
The parties are in agreement, and I find, that all
production and maintenance employees at the
Respondent's Owosso and Corunna, Michigan, plants,
including shipping and receiving department employees,
but excluding office clerical employees, professional
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
2. The UAW majority
Richard Bowen , whose qualifications as a handwriting
expert are shown by the record and were conceded by the
Respondent at the hearing , compared the signatures on
the UAW cards with those on W-4 forms." The
Respondent , which furnished the W-4 forms , asserted at
the hearing that it did not contest the authenticity of the
signatures thereon . Of the 129 UAW cards examined by
Bowen , he listed 119 as having authenticated signatures,
and the Respondent stipulated to the authenticity of these
signatures . As to the remaining 10 cards , Bowen stated
that one signature was not authenticated ;' 6 that three
cards had no matching W-4 forms;" Bowen said he had
no opinion as to whether or not one signature was
authentic but the "hand lettering" on the card and on the
W-4 form "did compare";" that two signatures on the
W-4 forms were illegible but the hand lettering thereon
and on the related cards did compare ;" that one W-4
form was unsigned but the hand lettering on it and on the
card did compare ; 30 and that , as to two cards which were
"The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed its holding that "An employer,
of course , may not , even if he acts in good faith , recognize a minority
union ." N.L.R.B. Y. Gissel Packing Co ., 395 U.S. 575, fn. 8. See also
Woodmere , Inc., 175 NLRB No. 69 (TXD).
"Sea Life Incorporated , 175 NLRB No. 168 ; Donna Lee Sportswear,
174 NLRB No. 54; H and H Plastics Mfg. Co, 389 F .2d 678 (C A. 6). In
Federal Mogul Corp . v. N.L.R. B., 394 F .2d 915 (C.A. 6), denying
enforcement of 163 NLRB No. 131, the court relied on factors which are
distinguishable from the instant case , such as the fact that the committee
there involved was composed of employee representatives from each
department , who were elected annually by the employees ; the committee
met by itself, met with the employees , and held regular scheduled meetings
with management ; negotiations leading to a collective bargaining
agreement were concededly 'carried on in a strictly arms' length,
give-and-take manner"; and, as the court therein concluded , the "entire
evidence in this case is consonant with the complete independence and
integrity of the committee."
211
signed in printed letters rather than script, the hand
lettering on them and on the respective W-4 forms did
compare.21 As to those instances in which Bowen stated
that the "hand lettering" on the W-4 form and on the
card "did compare," he stated further that in his opinion
the same person did the lettering on both, and that the
card of Betty Pardy was the only one that was not signed
by the employee in question.
The UAW made written requests for recognition on
about October 21 and November 26, 1968. Lists prepared
by the Respondent show 191 employees on the payroll as
of October 22 and 178 as of November 22. I find that 79
of the UAW cards are dated on or before October 21, the
date of the first request, which constitutes less than a
majority of the employees on the October 22 list. I find
further that 100 of the UAW cards are dated on or before
November 26 and contain the authenticated signatures of
employees whose names appear on the November 22
payroll list. These names, which are set forth in
"Appendix A," attached hereto, include six employees
whose cards Bowen authenticated because in his opinion
the same person did the hand lettering on both the card
and the W-4 form. 12 Accordingly, I find that the UAW
represented a majority of the Respondent's employees in
the appropriate unit on November 26, 1968, and, further,
that the UAW had achieved majority status on that date
even if those cards which Bowen authenticated on the
basis of the hand lettering are not counted.
3. The refusal to bargain
The UAW sent letters to the Respondent on October
21 and November 26, 1968, claiming to represent a
majority of employees in the appropriate unit, offering to
prove its majority status, and requesting collective
bargaining negotiations. The Respondent's only response
was a letter dated December 2 in which it rejected the
UAW claims on the ground that the Regional Director
had dismissed a UAW petition for an election and held
the contract with the Independent to be a bar. The
Respondent admits that it has at all relevant times refused
to bargain collectively with the UAW, and maintains that
"This method of authenticating signatures has been approved by the
Board . Aero Corporation, 149 NLRB 1283, 1287.
"That of Betty Pardy
"These were the cards of Charlotte Beerer, Alice Pickard, and Bonnie
Teeter The Respondent stated at the hearing, and the General Counsel
agreed , that none of the three were employees when the UAW made its
first demand for recognition on about October 21, 1968, and that only
Beerer was when another demand was made on about November 26.
"This referred to the card of Sue Zlomak
"This referred to the cards of Sharon Fath and Susan Spencer.
"This referred to the card of Shirley Smalley
"This referred to the cards of JoAnn M. Good and Bessie Nellis
"The names of those who signed UAW cards and who appear on the
payroll as of November 22 include Kathleen Burley, Bessie Nellis, Elaine
Roberts, and Shirley Smalley, whose cards the Respondent objected to on
the ground that they were undated , as they were in fact dated October
1968, only the day of the month having been omitted Aso included are
Zlomak, Fath, Spencer, Smalley, Good , and Nellis, whose cards were
authenticated by Bowen on the basis of the hand lettering, and Mary
Maciak and Thelma Rayno , whose cards, apparently inadvertently, are
dated September 11, 1969. The list does not include Charlotte Beerer as
her name does not appear on the payroll as of November 22 although the
Respondent indicated at the hearing she was employed on that date, and as
no W-4 form was provided against which Bowen could check her signature;
Verna Houck , Anna Marie Sabo , or Alfred Strobel , whose cards bear
dates later than November 26; or Timothy Olson because the original
exhibits in this case were lost in transit , necessitating use of the duplicate
exhibits, and the date on his duplicated card is illegible.
212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
it was justified in doing so in accord with certain
determinations made by the Regional Director and upheld
on appeal." The administrative determinations on which
the Respondent relies , however, were made in
representation cases and in a "CB" complaint case in
which the UAW charged the Independent with violations
of the Act. They are not determinative herein as they
involved different issues .:' Moreover, the Regional
Director, when he dismissed the petitions and refused to
issue a complaint in the "CB" case, made it clear that
there was no adjudication in such rulings of the question
whether the Independent was a dominated organization.13
Furthermore, the Independent, as well as its predecessor,
the "Shop Employees," have been found above to be
organizations which the Respondent unlawfully
dominated. I conclude, therefore, that the Memorandum
of Agreement which the Respondent executed with the
Independent, incorporating the agreement executed with
the "Shop Employees," does not constitute a valid basis
for the Respondent's rejection of the UAW's claim of
representative status.
The Respondent also contends that the signatures on
the petition circulated early in January 1969 by Devereaux
establish that the Independent was the representative of
the employees, or at least that many of the employees had
designated both organizations, thus casting doubt on the
validity of their UAW choice. The petition, however, was
not signed by a majority of the unit employees; the
signatures were obtained in the plant by an employee who
had been designated by the Respondent to play a leading
role in the Independent;S" and the Independent has been
found to be an unlawfully dominated organization. I find,
therefore, that the signatures on the petition do not
detract from the efficacy of the UAW cards, and that they
do not indicate that the Independent was the duly
designated representative of these employees. As the
Board has stated, "the representative status of a union is
not uncoerced where tainted by unlawful employer
assistance and support.""
The Respondent asserts, in both its answer and brief,
that it refused to bargain with the UAW because of a
good-faith doubt of the UAW's majority status. This
alleged doubt was not expressed, however, when the
Respondent rejected the UAW's requests, which included
an offer to prove its representative status. The
Respondent, moreover, continued during the period in
question to dominate the Independent in violation of
Section 8(a)(2). It also, as pointed out below, engaged in
"The UAW filed an election petition (Case 7-RC-9181) on October 30,
1968, which the Regional Director dismissed on contract-bar grounds on
November 13; another petition (Case 7-RC-9227 ) on December 5 which
the Regional Director dismissed on the same grounds on December 16; an
appeal from this ruling which the Board on January 22, 1969, affirmed;
and a charge (Case 7-CB- 1884) on December 19, 1968, alleging that the
Independent was violating the Act, which the Regional Director dismissed
on February 20, 1969 , which ruling on appeal was upheld.
'See McEwen Manufacturing Company. 172 NLRB No. 99, fn. 6,
Viking of Minneapolis. 171 NLRB No. 7, fn. 1.
"The Respondent 's brief points out, in fact , that the Regional Director,
in dismissing a petition on the ground of contract bar, held that Board
policy prohibited consideration in a representation case of the UAW
allegations that the Independent was a dominated organization; and, in
refusing to issue a complaint in the "CB" case, held that the charge that
the Independent was a dominated organization would not constitute a per
se violation of the provisions of Sec . 8(b) of the Act.
"See United Slates Railway Equipment Company, 127 NLRB No. 51,
Holland Manufacturing Company. 129 NLRB 776, 785.
"National Federation of Labor. Inc., 160 NLRB 961, United States
Railway Equipment Company. supra
interference, restraint, and coercion violative of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. Accordingly, I find, on the basis of the
entire record, that the Respondent was not motivated, in
refusing to recognize the UAW, by doubt of its majority
status. On the contrary, the nature and extent of its unfair
labor practices indicate that it was motivated by a desire
to gain time to dissipate the UAW's representative status,
to preclude the UAW from obtaining an election by
maintaining contractual relations with a dominated
organization, and to make a fair election, if the UAW
should succeed in obtaining one, an unlikely possibility. I
find, therefore, that the Respondent, by its refusal to
bargain with the UAW on and after December 2, 1968,
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act."
C. The 8(aXl) Issues
As described above, Betty Matthews on September 12,
1968, was called away from her machine into an office by
Miner, who "asked me if the UAW had contacted me,
and I told him yes and he asked me how I felt about it,
and I told him I was chairman for the UAW last year and
I felt the same way this year." A few days later, on
September 16, Matthews attended the meeting in
President Triggs' office in which the wage increase was
granted and the "Shop Employees" representatives were
told to spread the good news, but were not told to report
discontinuance of the attendance bonus.
Frederick Rood, who has left the Respondent's employ,
testified credibly and without contradiction that efforts
were made by some employees beginning in November
1968 to merge the UAW and the Independent, and that,
on December 1, some of the employees met at a union
hall and elected a committee, with Rood as president, to
look into this matter. On December 14, Miner and
Jakeway came to where Rood was waiting for his ride and
told him that he was the last one they thought would ever
"go for that UAW thing," that they were fair, and that he
did not have to go to the union because if he ever had a
problem he could talk it over with them. As Rood further
testified, at a dinner attended by all the male employees of
the Respondent on Saturday, December 14, Jakeway told
him, "I would have went a hell of a lot further in the
plant if I hadn't got mixed up in that stupid union "
I find, in the entire context of this case, that the
Respondent, by Miner's interrogation of Matthews after
calling her into a management office, by the remarks of
Miner and Jakeway that Rood did not have to go to a
union because he could talk over his problems with them, 39',
and by Jakeway's threat to Rood that adherence to the
UAW would lessen an employee's opportunity for
advancement, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. I find
further that the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act by such conduct; by granting a wage increase,
shortly after Miner's interrogation of Matthews about
UAW activity, in order to discourage membership in and
activity on behalf of the UAW;30 by having the wage
increase announced in a way most favorable to the
Independent, thereby having it "implemented through an
employer-dominated labor organization, itself a device for
diluting interest in unionism";" and by Miner's remarks
"N.L R.8 v. Gissel Packing Co, 395 U.S. 575.
19Solvay Baking Company, 176 NLRB No. 92
"Congdon Die Carting Company, 176 NLRB No. 60.
"See Kellwood Company v. N L.R.B., 411 F 2d 493 (C.A. 8), in which
the court held, on rehearing , that "The timing, the content and the manner
TRIGGS-MINER CORP. 213
on January 13, 1969, that he did not see why employees
would give statements to the Board when the Respondent
had given them a "big raise," their own union, and the
funds from the canteen for union business or whatever use
they preferred.
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 1, 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.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent engaged in conduct
violative of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (5) of the Act, I shall
recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
As I have found that the Respondent unlawfully
dominated and interfered with the administration of the
"Shop Employees" and dominated and interfered with the
formation and administration of the Independent, and
contributed financial and other support to both
organizations, I shall recommend that it completely
disestablish both organizations as representative of its
employees."
As I have also found that the Respondent unlawfully
refused to bargain with the UAW as the exclusive
representative of its employees in an appropriate unit, I
shall recommend that it bargain collectively, upon request,
with the UAW concerning rates of pay, wages , hours of
work, or other terms and conditions of employment, and
embody in a signed agreement any understanding reached.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the
entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, Triggs-Miner Corporation, is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW),
and "Shop Employees" and its successor, Independent
Workers of Owosso, are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By dominating and interfering with the
administration of the "Shop Employees" and dominating
and interfering with the formation and administration of
the Independent Workers of Owosso, and contributing
financial and other support to both organizations, the
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of
the Act.
4. All production and maintenance employees at the
Respondent's Owosso and Corunna, Michigan, plants,
including shipping and receiving department employees,
of the wage increase announcement support the Board 's determination that
such activity on the part of the employer constitutes a Sec 8(aXi)
violation ." See also Sea Life Inc ., supra
"Huberta Coal Co, Inc ., 168 NLRB No. 22; Henry Colder Company,
163 NLRB No. 13.
but excluding office clerical employees, professional
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
5. At all times since November 26, 1968, International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW), has been the
exclusive representative of the employees in the
appropriate unit described above for the purposes of
collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of work, and other terms and conditions of
employment.
6. By refusing to bargain collectively with the
above-named union, the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
7. By interrogating and threatening employees and by
granting them benefits in order to discourage their
membership in or support of the above-named union, and
by other conduct interfering with, restraining, and
coercing its employees in the exercise of their Section 7
rights, the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and the entire record in this case, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby recommend
that the Respondent, Triggs-Miner Corporation, Owosso
and Corunna, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of
"Shop Employees" or the formation or administration of
Independent Workers of Owosso, or contributing financial
or other support to either of these organizations or any
other labor organization of its employees.
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW).
(c) Interrogating or threatening employees or granting
them benefits in order to discourage their membership in
or support of the above-named union, or in any other
manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Completely disestablish "Shop Employees" and its
successor, Independent Workers of Owosso, as
representative of any of its employees for the purpose, in
whole or in part, of dealing with it in respect to
grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of
work, or other terms or conditions of employment.
(b) Upon request, bargain collectively with
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), as
the exclusive representative of the employees in the
following unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours
of work, and other terms and conditions of employment,
and embody in a signed agreement any understanding
reached. The bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees at the
Respondent's Owosso and Corunna, Michigan, plants,
214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
including shipping and receiving department employees,
but excluding office clerical employees, professional
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
(c) Post at its places of business in Owosso and
Corunna, Michigan, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix B."" Copies of said notice, to be furnished by
the Regional Director for Region 7, shall, after being duly
signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by
the Respondent 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 the Respondent to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be
dismissed insofar as it alleges any violation of the Act not
specifically found hereinabove.
"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."
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
Sharon E. Fath
Drenda Flagg
Janice Frelitz
Donna Garske
Jennifer George
Dianna German
Joyce Getcy
Lorraine L. Getcy
Janet Giacoma
Ann Gifford
JoAnn M. Good
Clara Guel
Mary Haas
Patricia Harrington
Cindy Harris
Nina M. Harrison
Magdalene Eva Hazelton
Dorothy E. Herron
Cathryn Hetfield
Judith Hetfield
Betty E. Horcha
Betty I. Huber
Barbara Hudeck
Beverly Husted
Barbara J. Johnson
Geraldine Johnson
Barbara Kennedy
Thelma Rayno
Judy Reid
Barbara Rewerts
Rosemary Rewerts
Elaine Roberts
Joyce Rohl
Kathy Schlicklin
Ray Shivley
Jackie Skornicka
Shirley Smalley
Bonnie Smith
Henry Snider
Kathryn Sodman
Susan Spencer
Donna M. Sprague
Rosemary Sprague
Sherry Thiel
Mary Sue Tunnacliff
Rosemary Turnwald
Darlene Vance
Genevieve Viers
Cynthia Ward
Patricia Whipple
Connie S. Wilson
Gloria Winans
Patricia Wisecup
Sue Zlomak
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
APPENDIX A
The following employees, whose names appear on the
November 22 payroll list, signed UAW cards on or before
November 26, 1968:
Beatrice Kay Albring
Barbara D. Allison
Marlene Anderson
Debra A. Berecz
Agnes M. Bigham
Kathleen Blaha
Judy Boles
Nellie Bolton
Beverly Brenner
Beatrice Mae Brewer
Kathleen Burley
Joyce A. Cairl
Etta Ruth Clark
Greta M. Claycomb
Jean Coleman
Beulah M. Cotter
Clarence Cronkright
John M. Davidson
Ann Delaney
Frances M. Duncan
Mary Dunn
Elma Edick
Thelma Edwards
Bonnie Lamphere
Arlene Larner
Bonnie M. Law
Robert Levitski
Mary Maciak
Pam Mack
Phyllis Martin
Betty Matthews
Patricia Maurice
Rosetta Maynard
Kathleen Melton
Dorothy Michalik
Linda Miller
Carol Moffit
Donna G. Moore
Donna Jean Nayback
Bessie Nellis
Helga Newman
Judy Newton
Patricia Onstott
Doris H. Parmenter
Gail M. Princinsky
Shirley Rader
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL NOT dominate or interfere with the
formation or administration of "Shop Employees" or
Independent Workers of Owosso or any other labor
organization of our employees, or contribute financial
or other support to such organization.
WE WILL completely disestablish "Shop Employees"
and Independent Workers of Owosso as the
representative of any of our employees for the purpose,
in whole or in part, of dealing with us in respect to
grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of
work, or other terms and conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW).
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW), as the exclusive representative of our
employees in the following unit with respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours of work, and other terms and
conditions of employment, and embody in a signed
TRIGGS-MINER CORP.
agreement any understanding reached . The bargaining
unit is:
All production and maintenance employees at our
plants at Owosso and Corunna, Michigan, including
shipping and receiving department employees, but
excluding office clerical employees, professional
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
WE WILL NOT interrogate or threaten our employees
or grant them benefits in order to discourage their
membership in or support of International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW), or any other
labor organization, in a manner constituting
interference, restraint, or coercion, or in any other
manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
215
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the National Labor Relations Act.
Dated By
TRIGGS-M INER
CORPORATION
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 500 Book
Building , 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan
48226, Telephone 313-226-3200.