Uncle Charlie's Sausage Company

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 10, 1981

256 N.L.R.B. 490 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Uncle Charlie's Sausage Company of Illinois, Inc.
and Teamsters Local Union No. 50, affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America. Case 14-CA-13856
June 10, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 28, 1981, Administrative Law Judge
Robert A. Giannasi issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,'
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Uncle Charlie's
Sausage Company of Illinois, Inc., Mt. Vernon, Illi-
nois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the said recom-
mended Order.
l Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi-
bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con-
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products.
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 162 (3d Cir. 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt the Administrative Law
Judge's dismissal of the 8(a)(1) allegations as to Respondent's having di-
rected employees to refuse to participate in union activities and having
told them that such activities would lead to violence. With respect to the
Administrative Law Judge's finding that Carl Moyer is a supervisor but
that Respondent should not be held responsible under Sec. 8(a)(1) for his
having told employee Adcock that Respondent would shut down if the
Union won, we note that the Administrative Law Judge, at the hearing,
granted Respondent's motion to dismiss this allegation. The General
Counsel agreed and counsel for the Charging Party did not object. Since,
additionally, there was no exception filed to the dismissal of the allega-
tion by the Administrative Law Judge in his Decision, we shall adopt the
8(aXI) dismissal as to Moyer, thereby finding it unnecessary to rule on
his supervisory status.
We also herein correct an inadvertent error by the Administrative Law
Judge. Contrary to the summary in par. 4, sec. III, B, of his Decision, the
Administrative Law Judge did not find in sec. III, A, that Shop Foreman
Jerry Catton told an employee that Respondent would close the plant if
the Union won. The record does not reveal that Catton made such a
threat.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT A. GIANNASI, Administrative Law Judge:
This case was heard in St. Louis, Missouri, on September
11, 1980. The complaint alleges that Respondent violated
256 NLRB No. 86
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act because of threats, interroga-
tions, and other statements made by its officials to em-
ployees in the course of an election campaign. Respond-
ent denies the substantive allegations of the complaint.
The parties filed briefs.'
Based upon the record in this case, including the testi-
mony of the witnesses and my observation of their de-
meanor, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, an Illinois corporation engaged in the
nonretail packing and sale of meat and related products,
maintains its principal office and place of business at
1040 Airport Road in Mt. Vernon, Illinois. During a rep-
resentative -year period, Respondent, in the course and
conduct of its business, sold and distributed, at its Mt.
Vernon place of business, products valued in excess of
$50,000, of which over $50,000 were shipped from said
place of business directly to points outside of Illinois.
Accordingly, I find, as Respondent admits, that it is an
employer within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act.2
1. THE I.ABOR ORGANIZATION
The Charging Party (herein referred the Union) is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
Ill. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Evidence
The Union began an organizing campaign among Re-
spondent's employees in early 1980. On March 31, the
Union mailed literature to the homes of employees stat-
ing that the Union was seeking to represent them. The
Union made other mailings to employees in April and
had a meeting with employees on May 23, 1980.
On the morning of April 3, 1980, Respondent's head
operating officer and secretary-treasurer, Rollin Zengler,
assembled employees and spoke to them about the union
campaign.
Employees Ruby Hildreth and Jane Van Avery testi-
fied that Zengler initiated the meeting by stating that he
had heard about the Union's organizing campaign.
Zengler stated that he understood that "a few employees
had gotten cards and letters from the Union but that
doesn't mean if you get a union you're going to get any
more money. I'm an old man, I'm ready to retire, and if
the Union comes in I will close the place. The meat busi-
' This case was originally consolidated with a related representation
case, Case 14 RC 9187, arising out of objections and challenges filed to
an election among Respondent's employees held on July 31, 1980, which
the Charging Party lost. Upon motion filed at the hearing, the representa-
tion case was severed and remanded to the Regional Director for disposi-
tlion.
' The amended complaint alleges that Respondent is a "labor organiza-
tion," an inadvertent error since it also refers to statutory provisions cov-
ering employers in interstate commerce. he original complaint referred
to Respondent as an "employer" Respondent's answer simply admitted
the allegation.
UNCLE CHARLIE'S SAUSAGE COMPANY 491
ness is shaky. Right now you never know how to go one
way or the other. Please consider not signing those
Union letters." Hildreth testified that Zengler said that,
in a previous union organizing campaign, "the company
and the main union organizer got into it and they tried to
run over the man in a car." Employee Van Avery testi-
fied as follows:
He said that he had received a letter from the
Teamsters that somebody in the plant wanted to get
a union going and this person or persons could
come to his office and he could talk to them about
it and that a union had tried to come in before but
there was a lot of brick throwing and a man almost
got run over and there was really nothing but a big
hassle and that if we got letters from the union to
disregard them. If we got phone calls from the
union to hang up on them and that he was going to
get a couple of diesels to go out of town to try to
get more business but he wasn't going to because of
this union business going on right now. He said, "I
am an old man, I have enough money. I will just
close the doors."
Zengler concluded the meeting by asking the employees
not to sign union cards.
Zengler did not significantly controvert the testimony
of the employee witnesses. According to Zengler, he
stated that he had heard about the Union's organizing ac-
tivity and commented on the timing of the activity.
Zengler questioned whether he could survive the "long,
hot summer" and he discussed some of Respondent's
recent financial problems. According to Zengler, he then
stated that "this means we may have some short hours
and the possibility of layoffs. Traditionally, we've never
had layoffs. Somehow or other we've always managed
to increase our business. But now I'm talking to Ray
Hannebique [sales manager] about what we can do. This
summer's going to be tough and this is why I think it's a
bad time for us to get involved with any organizational
attempts from any union." Zengler then told employees
about another union organizing campaign at Respond-
ent's Marion, Illinois, plant in approximately 1962.
Zengler spoke specifically of a strike at that plant where
managers and supervisors had to operate the trucks to
deliver perishable products. Zengler stated that he told
employees:
This led to violence. Subsequently at the hands of
the Teamsters, we were subject to rock throwing,
brick throwing, people climbing on top of the plant,
sabotaging the refrigeration. On one particular
night, when the brick throwing came at its peak,
one of our men who was backing out with his car,
was surrounded by a group of people, about 9
o'clock at night, trying to elude them, one Dale
Mandrell fell down and was alleged to be hurt. This
wasn't true. After five weeks, a hearing was held by
the NLRB, an election was set up, the election was
held, we went back to work, the election was held,
the company won. As part of the results of the
NLRB hearing, we fired four men for violence.
This was upheld by the NLRB. I tell you this as a
matter of record, as a matter of fact. This is what I
had from the Teamsters in those days, and I
thought it was a very shameful performance.
Zengler testified that after describing the prior cam-
paign, he discussed the authorization cards being distrib-
uted by the Union, stating "that they [the cards] were
for the purpose of an election to be conducted by the
National Labor Relations Board and, in view of the up-
coming tough summer and the timing, I ask you natural-
ly as an Employer, please don't sign the cards." Zengler
admitted telling employees they would very likely be
told that the union cards were kept secret and stated
once again, "I'd appreciate it if you think very hard
before signing these cards." Zengler told employees that
Respondent needed to replace machinery and to pur-
chase new and larger trucks. But, he continued, "if I am
faced with a hassle of this type for several months, I
must, in good conscience, think twice about letting any
orders." According to Zengler, he concluded the meet-
ing by saying:
I'm coming up on my 65th birthday. That doesn't
mean I'm going to retire. I have an enormous
amount of money invested in this business. I'm still
heavily in debt. I'll still be around. However, I'm
looking more and more to certain people to carry
the load. And, I don't want to start any rumors that
I'm leaving or anything like that, but I do want to
get the business in good shape and get some new
equipment and get some new trucks. Now, about
the pay situation. Inflation is with us, everybody
needs a raise. God knows, we're not the high dollar
in Mt. Vernon. Before I made this talk, I talked
with my attorneys over in Edwardsville, discussed a
few of these matters and it is my understanding that
when I know there is an attempt being made, any
sort of even token raise other than established pat-
tern, can be construed as me packing votes. There-
fore, until we get this matter concluded, I must
forebear on raises, at least until I get advice from
some sort of counsel.
I found Van Avery and Hildreth candid and credible
witnesses. Their accounts were mutually corroborative,
and, since they were still employed at the time of the
hearing, their testimony against their employer carries
great weight. Zengler's testimony, while rambling and
self-serving, confirmed to a great extent that of the em-
ployees. However, his testimony ameliorated those parts
of the speech dealing with the economic consequences of
the union campaign in such a way as to diminish the
likelihood that his testimony was a candid or totally ac-
curate reflection of the speech. Moreover, Zengler may
have confused what he said in his April 3 remarks-
which he conceded were "pretty much off the cuff"'-
with a prepared speech which he read to employees later
in the campaign. Therefore I credit Hildreth and Van
Avery concerning Zengler's remarks about closing the
plant and not expanding the business, to the extent that it
conflicts with Zengler's. I credit Zengler's more detailed
testimony, however, concerning his statements about vio-
492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lence in a prior union campaign. This testimony was not
controverted by the employee witnesses.
On June 4, 1980, the Union filed a petition for an elec-
tion among Respondent's employees with the Regional
Director for Region 14. The election was set for July 31,
1980. On June 25, 1980, the original complaint in this
case issued, upon a charge filed on May 27, 1980.
In early June 1980, Zengler called employees into his
office to discuss changes in Respondent's profit-sharing
plan. He told employee Jane Van Avery that he would
have given the employees a 5-cent raise except for "this
business" and his involvement in a Board proceeding. He
also asked her if the "Labor Board or the Union" had
come to her house or called her about the union cam-
paign. She said nobody had done so. He told her that
they had no business doing that. This was the first time
in 2 years of employment that Van Avery had been sum-
moned to Zengler's office. The conversation lasted 20
minutes, 10 minutes of which was devoted to the profit-
sharing matter.
On June 19, 1980, employee Verla Adcock was sum-
moned to Zengler's office. Zengler explained the profit-
sharing plan for about 10 minutes and then discussed the
Union's organizing campaign. He said that "the company
was in the red" and that it was a bad time for the Union
to be trying to organize the plant. He asked her if any
"federal government men" had come to her house or
called her. She said they had not.
Zengler testified that he could not recall speaking to
Van Avery about people coming to her house investigat-
ing unfair labor practices. He conceded that he did talk
about raises but gave no further details. Zengler testified
that he did not recall any testimony about the Union but
said that she "would have had to initiated [sic] it." He
did not recall any conversation about any unfair labor
practice investigation. He made conclusory denials that
he interrogated anyone about their participation in an
unfair labor practice investigation or union activities or
that he informed them that Union and Board agents had
no right to talk with them. In the latter situation, he ad-
mitted he made the statement to several employees to get
the identification of the person "you are dealing with."
I found the testimony of Van Avery and Adcock
about their individual meetings with Zengler more pre-
cise, candid, and reliable than that of Zengler, who was
more interested in putting a gloss on those conversations
to the extent he could recall them at all. Zengler's testi-
mony that the employees "initiated" conversations about
unfair labor practice investigations is implausible and un-
likely based on my assessment of the demeanor of the
three witnesses. I therefore credit the testimony of Van
Avery and Adcock in this respect.
The day before the election, Plant Foreman Carl
Moyer and Vera Adcock talked about the Union at her
work station. She asked him how he felt the election
would turn out and why. He responded and then asked
how she felt. She said she felt there was a good chance
the Union would win. Moyer responded that if the
Union won, "Unc," as Zengler was known, "would shut
the place down." He said that if that happened he would
be "on the unemployment line" and would have to sell
his house and trailer.
Moyer made a conclusory denial that he told Adcock
that Zengler would close the plant "because the employ-
ees were involved in union activities." He does not re-
member a conversation with Adcock at her machine in
late July concerning the Union. I credit Adcock's testi-
mony as more reliable than that of Moyer.
Plant Foreman Carl Moyer is paid $5.96 per hour,
much more than most rank-and-file employees. His hours
vary but he works generally from 4 a.m. to about 2:30 or
3 p.m. He works under the supervision of Ken Leslie,
the plant superintendent. There are about 18 production
employees under Leslie. There is no other supervisor be-
tween Leslie and the employees except for Moyer.
Moyer replaces Leslie when the latter leaves the plant at
or about noon. From the time Leslie leaves work at
noon until 3 p.m., Moyer is the only supervisor although
sometimes Leslie returns to the plant during the after-
noon hours. Some of the employees leave at 1:30 p.m.,
others at 2 p.m.
Moyer fired two employees in the spring of 1980, one
without prior consultation with Leslie. In July 1980, he
recommended to Zengler that an employee be given a
raise. Zengler denied the raise. Moyer testified Zengler
said, "[w]e had to wait until the union was settled," but
could not remember exactly what was said by Zengler.
He had not previously checked with Leslie before talk-
ing to Zengler. Employees come to Moyer requesting
time off. Most of the time, he talks to Leslie before
granting time off. He gives employees instructions as to
particular jobs to be performed, although he testified that
"everybody knows what they are supposed to do when
they come in that morning." When Leslie is at the plant,
he "pretty much" lays out the work to be done by the
employees. Moyer works with the other employees some
6 hours per day filling in for people who are absent or
on breaks.
On the day of the election, employee Jim Hildreth had
two conversations about the Union with Shop Foreman
Jerry Catton. The second conversation took place at or
about 11:30, just before noon, in an office used by
Catton. Catton asked whether the plant "will go union
or not." Hildreth said he did not know. Catton replied,
"I can tell you one thing. If it does go union when your
wife gets off early you won't be going home right when
she does and leaving me with all this work to do." Hil-
dreth said he never had left leaving him "a lot of work
to do" and Catton replied, "Well, I know but I'm just
telling you." Hildreth's wife works at the plant and
when they were hired they had an agreement with
Catton and Allen Dean, the office manager, that if she
got off early Hildreth could leave early as well. They
drive to and from work together and they travel 44 miles
per day. Catton has substantially adhered to this agree-
ment.
Catton denied having conversations with Hildreth
about the Union on the day of the election. But he did
later admit that he had an argument the day of the elec-
tion or the day before. After testifying first that he could
not recall what the argument was about, he later said it
was about the Union. He testified about only one conver-
sation. I viewed Catton as unreliable and even evasive in
----
UNCLE CHARLIE'S SAUSAGE COMPANY 493
his testimony. I found Hildreth the more reliable witness.
He was candid and straightforward.
Catton, the shop foreman, has worked for Respondent
for 14 years. He is paid $6.16 per hour, more than most
rank-and-file employees. He works in the maintenance
department from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. He has five employees
under him. Two work the same hours he does. He is re-
sponsible for the maintenance and repair of trucks, cars,
and machinery. He testified that "everybody knows what
to do," but he does instruct employees. For example, he
leaves written instructions to employees who come to
work before he does. He participates in interviews of
prospective employees with the office manager. He has
recommended that people be hired, and, four or five
times, his recommendations were followed. He has fired
two employees. He grants time off to employees who re-
quest it. He does not have to check with any superiors
before granting time off. Catton testified that, generally,
Plant Superintendent Leslie, whom he sees daily, tells
him what he wants done and I see that it goes [gets]
done."
Both Catton and Moyer where included in the unit in
the representation case, which provided for a "Stipula-
tion for Certification upon Consent Election" approved
by the Regional Director. They voted in the election of
July 31, 1980, without challenge. The General Counsel
argues that they were nevertheless supervisors within the
meaning of the Act and that their remarks to employees
were thus violative of the Act.
B. Discussion and Analysis
Based on the credited testimony, I find that Respond-
ent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when Zengler in-
terrogated employees Van Avery and Adcock concern-
ing their cooperation with the Board and union agents in
connection with the investigation of an unfair labor prac-
tice charge and when he advised them not to cooperate
with such agents.3
The credited testimony also shows that, in his April 3,
1980, speech to employees, Zengler threatened to close
the plant if the Union won representational rights and to
refrain from expanding his business as originally contem-
plated if the Union won representational rights. To some
extent Zengler's own testimony supports this finding.
Zengler's statements thus violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act. 4
2 The General Counsel did not allege that Zengler's comments about
the denial of raises was violative of the Act.
4 The complaint also alleges that Respondent violated the Act by the
following conduct:
C. On or about April 3, 1980, Respondent. acting through Secre-
tary-Treasurer Rollin W Zengler, interfered with employees'exercise
of Section 7 rights by directing employees to refuse to participate in
union organizational attempts.
E. On or about April 3 1980, Respondent, acting through Secre-
tary-Treasurer Rollin W Zengler told employees that union organi-
zational activity would lead to violence. The evidence does not sup-
port these allegations. Zengler's statements concerning violence in
another union campaign and his requests that employees not support
the Union were not violative of the Act. The General Counsel has
not submitted any evidence to show that Zengler's statements about
Respondent's argument that Zengler's statements about
plant closings were mere predictions is specious. He at-
tributed the closings to the presence of the Union and his
age and wealth, not any economic circumstances outside
of his control. Indeed, in a later speech, he rejected the
idea that he was going to close the plant, an idea which
he himself had planted in the minds of employees. The
same applies to Zengler's statement that he would not
order new equipment. Zengler made it clear both to em-
ployees and at the hearing that he was the "boss" and his
statements were not simply predictions, but threats
which he was fully capable of carrying out and which
were made in order to discourage union activities.
Zengler's remarks were thus the types of conscious over-
statements which intimidate employees and which were
found unlawful in N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co., 395
U.S. 575, 618 (1969). 5
As I have indicated in part A, supra, the credited testi-
mony shows that Moyer and Catton made statements to
employees which could be considered threats that Re-
spondent would close the plant and that Catton would
penalize an employee if the Union won the election. I
find that Moyer and Catton were supervisors within the
meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. Catton, the head of
the maintenance department, had the authority to grant
time off without consulting superiors, fired employees,
and effectively recommended the hire of employees. He
utilized independent judgment in exercising this authority
in the name of management. Moyer, the plant foreman,
fired an employee on one occasion without consulting
his superiors. This suggests the authority to fire utilizing
independent judgment. He grants time off and generally
helps Plant Superintendent Leslie supervise the produc-
tion employees. He runs the plant as the only supervisor
of the 18 production employees when Plant Superintend-
ent Leslie leaves work every day at noon. From until
about 2 p.m., he exercises Leslie's authority and he un-
doubtedly exercises such authority using independent
judgment in the name of management.
Even though both Catton and Moyer are supervisors
within the meaning of the Act, Respondent may not be
liable for the alleged threatening statements they made to
employees because they voted in the election without
challenge, and may have been viewed by employees as
not speaking on behalf of management. Their remarks
might therefore not have had the coercive impact that
they otherwise would.
The Board has held that where supervisors are includ-
ed in a bargaining unit by stipulation of the parties and
vote in an election without challenge, an employer is not
responsible for their antiunion conduct in the absence of
evidence that the employer "encouraged, authorized, or
ratified the supervisor's activities or acted in such a
union violence in a prior campaign were not factually based or oth-
erwise inaccurate And a simple statement requesting employees not
to support a union is not a separate violation of law
a I also reject Respondent's argument that its violations were cured
swshen Zengler made a second speech stating that he had no intention of
closing the plant Zengler did not disavow or even refer to his earlier
remarks He simplk stated that he Was responding to rumors, thus failing
even to acknowledge that he had earlier said anything to employees con-
cerning plant closure.
494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
manner as to lead employees reasonably to believe that
the supervisor was acting for and on behalf of manage-
ment." Hy Plains Dressed Beef; Inc., 146 NLRB 1253,
1254 (1964). See also Montgomery Ward & Co., 115
NLRB 645, 646-648 (1956), enfd. 242 F.2d 497 (2d Cir.
1957), cert. denied 355 U.S. 829; Nazareth Regional High
School v. N.L.R.B., 549 F.2d 873, 883 (2d Cir. 1977).
Applying this principle to the instant case, I find that
the General Counsel has not shown that Respondent
should be held accountable for Moyer's remark, but has
shown that Respondent should be held accountable for
Catton's remark.
Moyer's remark was made in an exchange with
Adcock, initiated by her, concerning the outcome of the
election. There is no evidence that any other manage-
ment official encouraged, authorized, or ratified the
remark or placed Moyer in a position where Adcock
would believe he was acting for management when he
made the remark. He was giving his opinion, as a person
who was permitted to vote in the election and in re-
sponse to questions from Adcock, about what Zengler
might do in the event of a union victory. There was no
reason for Adcock to believe, based on this record, that
Moyer had any particular insight into Zengler's thought
processes which was different than that of employees
generally. Zengler had already spoken to employees
about the possibility of the plant closing. Moyer was not
speaking to Adcock in his capacity as a representative of
management-indeed she initiated the conversation about
the Union's prospects-and he voted in the election
without challenge. The impact on Adcock was thus non-
coercive and there was no independent violation in the
expression of Moyer's opinion in the circumstances of
this case.
Catton's remark to Hildreth is different. Catton also
voted in the election without challenge even though he
was a supervisor. And his remark was not encouraged,
authorized, or ratified by other management officials.
However, as the supervisor of the maintenance employ-
ees, of whom Hildreth was one, as a person who was
placed in a position where he actually granted mainte-
nance employees permission for time off, as one of two
management officials who agreed to let Hildreth off
work early and as a person who actually lived up to the
agreement in the past as Hildreth's supervisor, his threat
to discontinue this arrangement was very real. Catton
had the authority to carry out his threat, and Respond-
ent, by giving him that authority as a supervisor and
placing him in a position to create the impression that he
had such authority, is responsible for his threat. Accord-
ingly, I find Catton's remarks to Hildreth were violative
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
CONCI.USIONS OF LAW
1. By threatening that it would close its plant and fail
to expand its operations as previously contemplated if
the Union won representation rights, Respondent violat-
ed Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. By interrogating employees concerning their union
and protected activities and by advising employees not
to cooperate with Board and union agents in the investi-
gation of unfair labor practices, Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. By threatening that, if the Union won representation
rights, an employee would lose employment benefits he
previously enjoyed, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
4. The above violations are unfair labor practices af-
fecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
5. Respondent has not otherwise violated the Act.
THE REMEDY
I shall recommend that Respondent cease and desist
from the unfair labor practices found in this case and
take certain affirmative action which is necessary to ef-
fectuate the purposes of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 6
The Respondent, Uncle Charlie's Sausage Company of
Illinois, Inc., Mt. Vernon, Illinois, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening employees that it will close its plant or
curtail its operations if they choose the Union to repre-
sent them.
(b) Threatening employees with loss of benefits if they
choose the Union to represent them.
(c) Interrogating employees about their union or pro-
tected activities or about their participation in a Board
investigation of unfair labor practice charges.
(d) Telling employees that they need not cooperate
with the Union or Board agent in connection with an
unfair labor practice investigation.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its facility in Mt. Vernon, Illinois, copies of
the attaced notice marked "Appendix." 7 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 14, after being duly signed by its representatives,
shall be posted by 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. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by it to insure that said no-
tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
In he event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the find-
ings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Sec 12.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and
become its findings. conclusions, and Order. and all objections thereto
shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
7 In the event that 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 National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
UNCLE CHARLIE'S SAUSAGE COMPANY 495
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dis-
missed insofar as it alleges violations not found herein.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had an opportunity to
present evidence and state their positions, the National
Labor Relations Board found that we have violated the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and has or-
dered us to post this notice.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees that we will
close our plant or curtail its operations if they
choose a union to represent them.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of
benefits if they choose a union to represent them.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees about their
union or protected activities or about their partici-
pation in a Labor Board investigation of unfair
labor practice charges.
WE WILL NOT tell employees that they need not
cooperate with a union or Labor Board agent in
connection with an unfair labor practice investiga-
tion.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner in-
terefere with, restrain or coerce our employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
UNCLE CHARLIE'S SAUSAGE COMPANY OF
ILLINOIS, INC.