United States Lines, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 27, 1975

217 N.L.R.B. 117 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

UNITED STATES LINES, INC.
United States Lines, Inc. and General Truck Drivers,
Chauffeurs & Helpers Local 692, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehouse-
men & Helpers of America. Cases 21-CA-12548
and 21-RC-13610
March 27, 1975
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
On November 18, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
William J. Pannier III issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief. The General Counsel filed
an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
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 Re-
lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of
the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders the
United States Lines, Inc., Long Beach, California, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that those allegations in the
complaint as to which no violations have been found
be, and they hereby are, dismissed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held on March
21, 1974, in Case 21-RC-13610 be, and it hereby is, set
aside, and that Case 21-RC-13610 be, and it hereby is,
remanded to the Regional Director for purposes of
conducting a new election.
[Direction of Second Election and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.]
DECISION
WILLIAM J. PANNIER III, Administrative Law Judge: These
cases were heard by me at Los Angeles, California, on Sep-
tember 12 and 13, 1974.1 The Complaint and Notice of
Hearing in Case 21-CA-12548 was issued on May 16 by the
Regional Director for Region 21 of the National Labor Rela-
1 Unless otherwise stated, all dates occurred in 1974.
117
tions Board, on the basis of an unfair labor practice charge
filed on March 27, and alleges violations of Section 8(a)(1) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 20 U.S.C.
Sec. 151, et seq., herein called the Act. The said Regional
Director has also consolidated for hearing with those unfair
labor practice allegations the issues presented by three chal-
lenged ballots and the Union's objections in Case
21-RC-13610 by a Report on Challenged Ballots and Objec-
tions and Order Directing Hearing and Order Consolidating
Cases and Notice of Hearing dated May 23, and by an Order
Directing Hearing on Challenged Ballots and Notice of Hear-
ing dated August 2,82
All parties have been afforded full opportunity to appear,
to introduce evidence, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to file briefs. Based upon the entire record, the
briefs submitted on behalf of the General Counsel and of
Respondent-Employer, and upon my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, I make the following:
I FINDINGS OF FACT
A. Jurisdiction
United States Lines, Inc., herein called Respondent, is a
Delaware corporation and has been engaged in business as a
container steamship operator with a facility in Long Beach,
California. In the normal course and conduct of these opera-
tions, Respondent annually derives gross revenue in excess of
$50,000 from the transportation of freight in interstate or
foreign commerce. Therefore, I find that Respondent is, and
has been at all times material herein, an employer within the
meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
B. The Labor Organization Involved
General Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local 692,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen & Helpers of America , herein called the Union, is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
C. Issues
1. Whether Respondent , through Carl Northrope,3 vi-
2 The ballots that were challenged were those of Linda Garcia, Joanne
Martin, and Donald P. Grot, and the basis of the challenges to their eligibil-
ity was that they were supervisors within the meaning of Sec. 2(11) of the
Act. After Grot had been interrogated regarding his supervisory authority,
the parties stipulated that he had been a supervisor within the meaning of
Sec. 2(11) of the Act. Accordingly, the challenge to his ballot is sustained
and it will not be counted, with the result that, under the revised tally of
ballots, 10 ballots had been cast for Petitioner, 12 ballots had been cast
against Petitioner, and the 2 remaining challenged ballots are not sufficient
in number to affect the results of the election. The parties agreed, therefore,
that there was no need to pursue the matter of the challenged ballots further
It should, however, be noted that for purposes of the unfair labor practices
and objections portions of these matters, it was stipulated that, at all times
relevant herein, Linda Garcia had not been a supervisor within the meaning
of Sec. 2(11) of the Act.
3 In the complaint and notice of hearing, this man's name was spelled
"Northrope," but in Employer's answer to complaint it was pointed out
Continued
217 NLRB No. 27
118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
olated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by engaging in the following
acts and conduct:
(a) On or about March 11 and 18, soliciting grievances
from employees in order to encourage them to forego their
-support of the Union?
(b) On or about March 18 and 19, promising benefits to
employees in order to encourage them to forego their support
of the Union?
(c) On or about March 19 and 21, threatening employees
with loss of benefits in order to encourage them to forego
their support of the Union?
(d) On or about March 19, placing employees in the posi-
tion of having to declare their union preference?
(e) On or about March 19 , making statements to employees
to discourage them from participating in a NLRB election?
(f) On or about' March 19, soliciting and utilizing em-
ployees to influence other employees against the Union?
(g) On or about March 19 and 20, soliciting employees to
interrogate their fellow employees concerning their union
activities, membership, and sympathies?
2. Whether Respondent, through James Ardron, violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening employees with loss
of benefits in order to encourage them to forego their support
of the Union?
3. Whether Respondent, through Vijay Vakil, violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act by engaging in the following acts and
conduct:
(a) In or about March, threatening employees with loss of
benefits in order to encourage them to forego their support
of the Union?
(b) In or about August, threatening, employees with loss of
benefits in order to encourage them to forego their support
of the Union?
(c) In or about August, threatening employees with closure
of the plant if they selected the Union as their collective-
bargaining representative?
(d) On or about September 4, inducing employees not to
honor subpenas for and interrogating employees concerning
their testimony before the National Labor Relations Board?
D. Events of Issue
Respondent has been engaged in business as a container
steamship carrier with tricontinental service between Europe
and the continental United States, Hawaii, Guam, Hong
Kong, and the Far East. It maintains a corporate office in
New York City and has offices throughout the world, includ-
ing in Savannah, Georgia, and in Oakland and Long Beach,
California.
Respondent's Long Beach facility consists of a main office
building and, approximately 100 yards away and across the
street, a terminal building. Located in the main office build-
ing are the private offices of various managerial officials and,
in a pool area where the desks are situated fairly close
together, employees who work in the documentation, ac-
counting, and sales' department. Prior to November 1973,
specifically that the correct spelling was "Northrup." However, no motion
to correct the spelling of his name was made at the hearing and while in his
brief counsel for the General Counsel adopted the spelling as set forth in the
answer, in its brief Respondent has adopted the spelling as set forth in the
complaint I shall use the latter spelling.
Gene Kleindinst had been freight manager of Respondent's
Long Beach office, but in that month was transferred to -the
Savannah facility and his position at Long Beach was left
unfilled until March.
On February 21, the Union's representation petition in
Case 21-RC-13610 was filed and on March 8, following a
strike by the employees whom the Union sought to represent,
the parties executed a Stipulation for Certification Upon Con-
sent Election agreeing to an election on March 21 among the
employees in a unit of. all office employees employed by the
Employer at its facility located at 980 Windham Avenue,
Long Beach, California, Berth 230, Pier G; excluding all
other employees, salesmen, professional employees, guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
Following execution of the Stipulation for Certification
Upon Consent Election, Respondent furnished a list of voters
pursuant to Excelsior Underwear, Inc., 156 NLRB 1236
(1966), and N.L.R.B. v. Wyman-Gordon Company, 394 U.S.
759 (1969). Employee Michael Sullivan testified that when he
was shown the list by the Union he noticed that it contained
the names of certain individuals whom be believed to be
supervisors. Thus, on the following day, approximately 2
weeks before the election, he went to the office of Port
Manager James Ardron,° who Sullivan testified had an
open-door policy, to inquire concerning the matter. On direct
examination , Sullivan testified that following their discussion
of the subject which had led him to Ardron's office, the two
of them began to discuss the benefits provided by Respondent
and, Sullivan testified, that if the employees selected the
Union as their bargaining representative, they would no
longer have these same benefits, although careful examina-
tion of the transcript discloses that he did not attribute this
statement to Ardron. Sullivan concluded his testimony on
direct examination by stating that Ardron had said that all
present employee-benefits and privileges would be "tossed
out onto a table" and each would be bargained for with the
result that they could go higher or lower or stay where they
were.
On cross-examination, Sullivan testified that his discussion
with Ardron of employee benefits arose when they had begun
to discuss the pros and cons of a union shop versus a nonun-
ion shop and that Ardron then brought up the benefits that
the employees enjoyed, explaining the present benefits which
Sullivan enjoyed and stating that those benefits would be
subject to collective bargaining since they were wages, hours,
and conditions of employment. Sullivan acknowledged at this
point that Ardron had not stated that the benefits could go
up or down or stay the same, but that he (Sullivan) had
assumed that when there was bargaining for any particular
item that it could go either way. Ardron's testimony corre-
sponded essentially with that of Sullivan on cross-
examination-that he (Ardron) had reviewed the pres-
ent benefits and had said that those benefits would be sub-
jects for bargaining in the event that the Union won the
election.
Prior to March, the documentation manager at the Long
Beach facility had been Jerry Tarpin, an individual who did
not enjoy a great deal of affection of the employees whom he
supervised at that facility. In early March, Tarpin was trans-
4 An admitted supervisor and agent of Respondent
UNITED STATES LINES, INC. 119
ferred to the Savannah facility at Kleindinst's request and at
the direction of Respondent's New York City headquarters.
The freight manager of Respondent's Oakland facility, Carl
Northrope,5 was assigned by West Coast Vice President
Carey to take Tarpin's place at Long Beach and on March 6,
Northrope journeyed to Long Beach where, on the following
morning, he was introduced to some staff members by Tar-
pin, who then left later in the morning for Savannah.
Northrope spent the remainder of the day at the terminal
building and on Friday, March 8, engaged in discussions with
sales personnel, Ardron, and whoever else was available. He
then returned to the San Francisco Bay Area for the weekend.
On Monday morning, March 11, Inbound Documentation
Clerk Burley McElwain met Northrope at Los Angeles Inter-
national Airport and drove him to Long Beach facility, a ride
which took them approximately 1 hour. McElwain testified
that during this trip, Northrope inquired about the dissatis-
factions among the employees-why they were frustrated and
what the problems had been that had given rise to those
frustrations-and what the employees expected the Union to
do to help them. McElwain testified that he told Northrope
that the frustrations were caused basically by Respondent's
lack of concern for the fact that there was no flexibility within
the office insofar as transfers were concerned with the result
that many people felt neglected financially. Northrope re-
plied, according to McElwain, that this had been the situation
at Respondent's Oakland facility prior to his arrival at that
location and that he had instituted a training program which
had enabled employees to move from one department to
another, being trained by other employees during such times,
and that he was thereby able to get raises for various em-
ployees.
Northrope denied asking McElwain about the "problems"
of the employees during the ride from the airport, although
he testified that, in addition to asking McElwain about his
duties, he also asked McElwain about his problems, his
"opinions of the office in general," his opinion of how things
were being run, and for his suggestions. Northrope further
denied that the words "Union" or "Teamsters" were used
during this conversation. McElwain freely acknowledged
that there was no mention of the word "Union" in his pretrial
affidavit furnished in April, but testified that when he re-
viewed this affidavit in September for the hearing he realized
that this had been omitted and further testified that he made
specific notes of matters which he remembered but which had
not been included in the affidavit.
Northrope testified that during the week of March 11, he
held meetings or conferences or discussions with every em-
ployee at the Long Beach facility with the object of ascertain-
ing their functions and how they were handling their jobs.
From these meetings , conferences , and discussions, he testi-
fied, he learned that the employees lacked experience or guid-
ance and that the majority of the employees were dissatisfied
working at the jobs to which they had been assigned. General
Counsel presented two'witnesses who testified to such meet-
ings with Northrope during the week of March 11.
Freight Cashier Donna Lynn Poffenroth testified that she
had sought a transfer to the inbound documentation depart-
5 The parties stipulated that all times relevant herein , Northrope was a
supervisor within the meaning of Sec . 2(11) of the Act.
ment in January and that during the week of March 11, when
she was called into Northrope's office, he asked her if she was
happy with her job and she replied that she liked her job but
that there were some problems. Poffenroth testified that
Northrope then asked how she liked inbound freight to which
she responded that she had-tried to get into that department
previously but had been turned down because, she had been
told, Respondent did not want to transfer anybody that
would necessitate a readjustment of their pay. According to
Poffenroth, Northrope then said "Papa Northrope will take
care of that" and when she then inquired if there was a chance
of obtaining a transfer, Northrope replied "Yes." Although
he denied that he had used the phrase "Papa Northrope" and
testified that as this had been his first week at the Long Beach
facility he was in no position to transfer anybody, Northrope
admitted that he had a conversation with Poffenroth on Mon-
day or Tuesday of the week of March 11 during which she
and he had discussed her desire to be transferred to the
inbound freight section and he did not deny that he had
assured her that there would be a chance for her to receive
the transfer.
The second employee who testified to being in a meeting
with Northrope during the week of March 11 was Richard
Hernandez, outbound documentation, clerk for the Far East
and Guam. Hernandez testified that when he was called to
Northrope's office, the latter inquired regarding how he was
doing in his job and then initiated a discussion of a training
program , saying that he had instituted a training program in
Oakland with the result that employees had obtained the
opportunity to learn various jobs which enabled them to
move from desk to desk and to receive raises because they
learned more. Northrope, according to Hernandez, pointed
out that he had never been turned down when he requested
a raise for an employee and stated that he would like to
institute the same program in Long Beach . Then, Hernandez
testified, Northrope invited Hernandez to check with Oak-
land personnel to prove that they had liked his training pro-
gram and Hernandez stated that he had heard many empty
promises from Respondent and inquired regarding whether
Northrope had authority from New York and from Carey
and Ardron to institute such a program. According to Her-
nandez, Northrope said that Hernandez did not have to
worry on this account, saying "I have the authority; I have
the power. I was sent down here to do a job and I am going
to do it, and if they don't let me 'do it I will get back on that
plane and go back to Oakland." Then, Hernandez testified,
Northrope cautioned that if the Union prevailed in the elec-
tion he could not institute the training program, but that if
Respondent won the election then he would begin that pro-
gram on the Monday following the election.
Northrope testified that he had spoken on many occasions
with Hernandez during the week of March I1 but that such
discussions had mainly involved Hernandez' job and the rea-
sons for the high number of correction vouchers and freight
brokerage invoices that were outstanding. Northrope did ad-
mit, however, that he and Hernandez had discussed the sub-
ject of training to afford the employees the proper experience
in different jobs, but he asserted that it had been Hernandez
who had initiated the discussion of the subject.
Apparently during the week of March 11, and alleged con-
versation took place between Finance Manager Vijay
120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Vakil6 and credit and collection clerk Beverly Wilson and
accounts payable clerk Barbara Mayrand .' On direct exami-
nation, Wilson testified that while the two women were in
Vakil's office, the latter said that if Respondent went union
then , all union employees would be precluded from promo-
tions to management - positions and that Respondent would
seek outside personnel to fill vacancies in such positions with
the result that the two women would remain clerks for the
rest of their lives . Wilson concluded her direct examination
with the statement that this was "all I can honestly say that
was said that I remember ." On cross-examination , however,
she acknowledged that she and Mayrand had been discussing
the Union in Vakil 's office, in Vakil's presence , and that they
had asked Vakil what he thought because they were mixed up
as to how they should vote in the upcoming election. She
further admitted , when confronted with her pretrial affidavit
by Respondent 's counsel , that Vakil had said that unions
were not bad and then she volunteered the following : "In fact,
one reason I didn 't put it in my statement-I have got my
reasons I didn 't but thinking about it later he did tell us, you
know , that unions had good points but he didn't feel that U.S.
Lines was the type of company that needed a union . He didn't
really down unions , but he did state he didn't feel our com-
pany needed one." She further admitted that when she and
Mayrand had asked Vakd how he thought they should vote
in the representation election that Vakil had replied that he
couldn 't tell them what they could do but that he thought
that unions had their good points, although Respondent was
young and had young people which led him to feel that this
particular company did not need a union . She then reiterated
her previous testimony that Vakil, who later testified that he
did not recall, any, such conversation with Wilson and May-
rand, had said that if the employees chose representation they
would never be promoted to managerial positions and that
the two women would remain clerks.
During the week of the March 21 election , Northrope had
several conversations regarding the training program and
transfers . Thus, Poffenroth testified that on March 18,
Northrope summoned her to his office and said that she could
"book it for the inbound job" and that she would take over
on the following , Monday. When Poffenroth suggested that
her current job be assigned to Ruby Klansboro, Northrope,
according to Poffenroth , directed her to commence training
Klansboro who would then be the next freight cashier.
Northrope testified that Poffenroth would have had to be
trained both in her current position and in the inbound job
before any such transfer could be considered , but he also
testified only that he did not recall having a conversation with
Poffenroth on March 18 and he admitted that the phase
"book it" was an expression used by him.
On this same day, McElwain and Inbound Documentation
Supervisor Linda Garcia testified that they were summoned
to Northrope 's office. Garcia testified that Northrope asked
her about the other employees ' problems or dissatisfactions
and that she responded that they were dissatisfied with the
6 The parties stipulated that Vakil was a supervisor at all times material
herein.
7 General Counsel represented that attempts had been made to contact
Mayrand, both during the investigation of this case and during pretrial
preparation , but that these attempts did not meet with success . Of interest
in this regard in the testimony of Martinez , set forth infra.
wages that they had been receiving and that they were dissat-
isfied with their inability to be considered qualified for other
positions which became vacant . Northrope, Garcia testified,
said that this would no longer happen at Long Beach and
then discussed a training program which he had instituted in
Oakland to train everyone to be able to handle each others'
desks so that if one person were promoted, then another
person was trained for the job which had been vacated, add-
ing that he had gotten one employee a $1,000 raise and
another employee close to $1,500 due to that training pro-
gram . Garcia then testified that she asked if Northrope felt
that he would be able to obtain the cooperation of the other
managers, as well as of the New York City headquarters, in
light of the fact that different officials had' previously pro-
mised many things, all of which had been vetoed in New
York . According to Garcia , Northrope responded that he
had the 100-percent backing of Assistant Vice President
Keely and would telephone him in New York to verify this
assertion.
By and large, McElwain corroborated Garcia's version of
the statements made during the March 18 meeting, testifying
that Northrope had inquired of Garcia as to the frustrations
and problems of the employees , that Garcia complained re-
garding her failure to obtain promotions and about her finan-
cial situation, that Northrope discussed the training program
that he had instituted in Oakland and hoped to institute in
Long Beach so that the employees could obtain raises and
promotions , that Garcia questioned his authority to under-
take such a program, and that Northrope indicated that the
New York City headquarters was 100 percent behind him. At
no place during his direct examination did McElwain assert
that Northrope had referred to the Union during this conver-
sation . Yet, on cross-examination, Respondent asked if it
were not true that he (McElwain) had stated in direct exami-
nation that Northrope had discussed the Union during the
March 18 conversation and McElwain responded affirma-
tively , adding that Northrope tended to feel that his authority
to give the raises and to institute his training program would
in the end be more beneficial than an overall union situation.
As had been the case with respect to his testimony concerning
the March 11 conversation with Northrope, McElwain
agreed with Respondent's counsel that there was no mention
of the Union in his pretrial affidavit 's recitation of the March
18 meeting. Furthermore , Garcia testified specifically that
the Union was not raised by Northrope during their discus-
sion of March 18 . Consequently, there is a discrepancy in
McElwain's testimony . But the simple fact is that Northrope
by and large corroborated Garcia and McElwain with regard
to the other matters covered during the meeting. Thus
Northrope admitted that he had discussed the business and
operations of the office with these two employees , had asked
them if they had any suggestions or ideas on how the work
load could be eased or improved, had suggested institution of
a training program to upgrade the knowledge and documen-
tation for everyone, had discussed the extent of his authority
to train people in other jobs, and had spoken with them about
checking with New York, although he asserted that he had
told them that the reason that he would contact New York
was to see if Cary had Keely 's backing.
Accordingly , without regard to the issue of whether or not
the Union was discussed on March 18 when Northrope met
UNITED STATES LINES, INC. 121
with Garcia and McElwain, Northrope essentially corrobo-
rates the two employees' testimonies concerning the other
matters raised and discussed at that time. Moreover, on cross-
examination, the Northrope continued to testify in a manner
consistent with the-testimonies of the General Counsel's wit-
nesses until it apparently became obvious to him what was
happening at which point he made a not wholly successful
effort to extricate himself. Thus, on cross-examination, he
initially admitted that he had discussed the training program
with everyone, that he had referred to Oakland with respect
to his accomplishments, that he had mentioned the training
of employees in Oakland that had enabled them to transfer
into other jobs with the ability to handle them, that normal
transfers in Oakland had been accompanied by wage in-
creases, and that he had initiated a discussion of what had
taken place in Oakland. But as counsel for the General Coun-
sel pressed forward, Northrope suddenly reversed his field
and denied that he had told the employees that he would like
to institute the same training program that he had instituted
in Oakland and that people could be trained for better posi-
tions and would get wage increases. Then he denied that he
had told the employees what had taken place in Oakland,
notwithstanding his prior testimony, asserting, "I told them
I had gone on my record of what was happening in Oakland,
and if they wanted to verify it, they could contact Oakland
office ...." However, he immediately then stated: ".. .
that the training program was successful in training the peo-
ple to do the job properly and insured that there were people
transferred into other position," thereby returning, in effect, to
his initial admission. (Emphasis supplied.) He then retreated
to avoiding the General Counsel's question, "You never told
them that you wanted to institute that program in Long
Beach?" by responding "I [had] seen a desire to institute a
training program in Long Beach." This is probably an appro-
priate place to point out that Northrope also testified that
other than starting Hernandez working with another em-
ployee, Respondent, at the time of this hearing, had only
"spent a little bit more time on training the people to do the
jobs that they were in at the present time." There is, so far
as this record discloses, no program, formal or informal, for
training employees to perform other jobs.
Northrop did not deny Garcia's and McElwain's testimo-
nies that on the following day, March 19, he again summoned
them to his office and, following a discussion of the problems
and the training program, said that he definitely had Keely's
backing to do what he had promised. That evening, Respond-
ent hosted a cocktail party for the employees. The party
commenced at approximately 4 p.m. and ended between 10
and 11 p.m. Respondent provided free snacks and alcoholic
beverages and apparently the employees availed themselves
of these refreshments for at the end of the evening Ardron
took 15 of them to the Copper' Penny for coffee because he
did not want them driving in their condition. Of significance
for the instant case are two discussions which occurred dur-
ing the course of that party-one which Northrope had with
McElwain and Garcia and the other between Poffenroth and
Northrope.
The conversation between Northrope and Garcia and
McElwain took place at some point between 7:30 and 9:30
p.m. in the room which Northrope had rented during the
initial phase of his assignment to the Long Beach facility.
Garcia testified that Northrope again reviewed his program,
asking if McElwain and Garcia were still going to back him,
and that she mentioned again the fact that in the past the
employees had been let down by Respondent on quite a few
occasions . Northrope, Garcia testified, replied that he would
follow through on his promises and assured her that he did
have the backing of the people in New York, after which he
asked the two employees to speak with their colleagues on the
following day and explain his program to them, again appeal-
ing to them to have faith in him. McElwain testified that
during this conversation they discussed the problems of the
office and Northrope's ideas to improve the situation, and
that Northrope appealed to them to have faith in his-ability
to carry out the training program, obtain raises for -em-
ployees, and effect departmental transfers. According to
McElwain, the discussion turned to the representation elec-
tion scheduled for Thursday and Northrope stated that if a
majority of the employees voted to postpone the election for
6 months then the Union would probably acquiesce in a
postponement and the employees would have an opportunity
to determine if Northrope would live up to his promises. The
discussion ended, McElwain testified, with him and Garcia
promising to meet with the employees on the following day
to ascertain their desires regarding postponement of the elec-
tion.
Garcia did not mention the question of holding an em-
ployee meeting to ascertain if they felt that the election should
be postponed when she testified concerning the meeting with
Northrope at the cocktail party. However, two independent
matters tend to corroborate McElwain's testimony that the
subject was first raised during the cocktail party. The first
was Northrope's own testimony in which he stated that
Garcia and McElwain had broached the matter of postponing
the representation election by saying that they could stop the
whole thing, that they intended to have faith in Northrope
and hoped that he would not let them down as they had
previously put faith in two other officials of Respondent who
had let them down, and that if the discussion went any fur-
ther, they would deny making these "statements . Northrope
denied that he suggested or instructed McElwain and Garcia
to talk to the employees and convey to them that he was a
man of his word who harbored goodwill toward them, denied
that he suggested or instructed them to take a poll, and denied
that he suggested or instructed them to ascertain the em-
ployees' sentiments. However, other than his assertions that
Garcia and McElwain, said that they could stop the whole
thing, that they intended to have faith in him, and that if
Northrope repeated their remarks they would deny having
made them, Northrope testified that he had no recollection
of anything else that was discussed during that meeting. Yet,
he estimated the meeting to have lasted 45 minutes to an
hour.
The second factor demonstrating the accuracy of McEI-
wain's testimony regarding the discussion of an employee
election during the meeting in Northrope's room was an
event that took place at approximately 9:30 that evening.
Poffenroth testified that Northrope called her aside and told
her that there was not going to be an election and that there
would be a meeting during the following morning to discuss
it. Poffenroth also testified that at the time she was wearing
one of the Union's buttons and that Northrope asked her
122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
what it was and when she replied that it was a Teamsters
button, he asked her to take it off. Northrope denied advising
Poffenroth that the election would not be held as scheduled
and that there would be a meeting the following morning. He
testified that a number of those in attendance at the party
were wearing union buttons and that when he observed Cary
wearing one, he then asked some of the employees if he could
have their buttons so that he too could wear one. He was
unable to recall if Poffenroth had been one of the employees
whose button he requested, but testified that if he did instruct
Poffenroth to remove her button it would only have been to
permit him to wear it . However, while it is clear that a num-
ber of employees were wearing the Union's button, Cary was
not called to corroborate Northrope's assertion that he had
been wearing a union button and no other witness cor-
roborated Northrope in this regard. Similarly, Respondent
produced no employees to corroborate Northrope's tes-
timony concerning his assertedly jocular requests to wear a
union button . Instead, Respondent attempted to impugn Pof-
fenroth's capacity to appreciate what had transpired on that
evening . In this regard, it is clear that when the party drew
to a close, Poffenroth telephoned her husband at approxi-
mately 10:30 p .m., telling him that she couldn 't drive because
she was not sober and then she requested that Vakil drive her
home. Vakil, the only witness produced by Respondent to
testify about Poffenroth's condition, initially characterized
her as "drunk," but then quickly corrected this description
and characterized her as "not sober."
On the following morning, March 20, Garcia and McEl-
wain went to Northrop's office. McElwain testified that the
purpose of this meeting was to ascertain when Northrope felt
it would be best for Garcia and McElwain to meet with the
employees and that Northrope suggested that it be done at
the 10:15 a.m. coffeebreak. Garcia testified that it was during
this meeting that Northrope requested her and McElwain to
meet with the employees and discuss postponing the election
to afford Northrope an opportunity to effect the promised
corrections in working conditions. Garcia testified that when
she told Northrope that she did not know if the election could
be posponed, he suggested that she contact the Board's Re-
gional Office and that when she did so, she was told that the
election could be postponed only if the Union withdrew its
petition. When she reported this to Northrope, she testified
that he asked McElwain and her to nonetheless talk to the
employees and explain what he wanted to do. Northrope,
however, testified that the two employees simply came to his
office that morning and announced that they intended to hold
a meeting of the employees for an informal vote, at which
point he advised Ardron of what they had said and was told
by Ardron that the employees could not hold a meeting but
could do whatever they wanted during their coffeebreak or
lunch hour. At some stage prior to the employee meeting this
was made clear, for Garcia and McElwain initially had told
the employees that there would be a meeting and subse-
quently the employees were told that it could not be called
a meeting officially and that it had to be termed a coffeebreak.
Without regard to the nomenclature, it is clear that during
the coffeebreak session Garcia told the employees what
Northrope had said, particularly with regard to the institu-
tion of a training program , and expressed her trust in
Northrope, appealing to the employees to afford him 6
months to demonstrate that he was a man of his word. The
employees voted by secret ballot on whether or not to post-
pone the representation election , but apparently the ballots
were never tabulated for they were put in a small cardboard
box which was picked up by Northrope's secretary and there
is no evidence concerning what thereafter happened to them.
On the morning of the election, March 21, Poffenroth
testified that she was called to the office where Nortlirope
again told her that she could "book it" for the inbound job,
adding that he could not institute his employee-training pro-
gram or any other goals if the Union prevailed in the election.
During this conversation, testified Poffenroth, Northrope
stated that he had authority from the top to do anything he
wanted to do at the port of Long Beach and that since Ardron
would be transferred to Oakland within 2 months, he
(Northrope) would become port manager. Northrope denied
telling Poffenroth that he could not institute a training pro-
gram because of the Union, but he did not deny making the
statement that he could not institute the program or any
other goals if the Union prevailed'in the election. He further
testified that he could not recall telling Poffenroth that morn-
ing that she could "book it" for the inbound freight job.
The remaining allegations charging Respondent with un-
fair labor practices involve events which transpired after the
election and which, accordingly, are not asserted as a basis
for setting aside the representation election in Case
21-RC-13610. These allegations concern conversations be-
tween switchboard operator Lydia Martinez and Finance
Manager Vakil, the first of which occurred either in late July
or early August while Martinez was driving Vakil to Ana-
heim to pick up his automobile. Martinez testified that Vakil
asked her how she liked her job and how things were getting
along, to which she responded that she was getting along
fine' and that she enjoyed it except for the fact that there
was so much hostility present. Vakil replied, according to
Martinez, that the cause of the hostility was primarily the fact
that people were unhappy and thought that they would be
able to do better if the Union came in, but that if it did become
the representative, Respondent would most likely close the
plant or turn it over to an agent, as it had done elsewhere,
since it would not be able to afford to pay union scales and
would end up losing money. In fact, Martinez testified, Vaktl
said that if the Union became the bargaining representative,
most of the employees would not be qualified for their jobs
because some type of college background would be required
and better qualified people would be sought for the wages that
had to be paid. Martinez further testified that Vakil had said
that while unionihad some good points, such as dental and
eye coverage, for the most part unionization of Respondent's
employees would not be good, since they would never be able
to advance and the Union would bring in its own people,
adding that promotions would only be made by seniority, not
by ability. Vakil acknowledged that Martinez had driven him
8 In fact, things were anything but "fine" with Martinez. Vakil had been
her supervisor since she had first commenced working for Respondent on
Arpil 29 and, she acknowledged that he had reprimanded her "just about
every day for some reason or another," such as for being tardy in the
morning and taking "in his opinion" extended breaks . He had docked her
pay and in August the situation reached the point where Martinez submitted
a letter of resignation, although she was ultimately dissuaded from actually
resigning.
UNITED STATES LINES, INC.
to pick up his car in Anaheim and although he admitted that
they discussed a number of matters, he denied having any
discussion with her about closing Respondent's Long Beach
facility.
Martinez testified that this conversation made her so fear-
ful that she thereafter attempted to persuade Beverly Wilson
and Joanne Martin , as well as other unidentified employees,
to stop their union activities because she feared that the Long
Beach facility might in fact be closed.
The second incident between Vakil and Martinez involved
the subpena which Martinez had received for the hearing in
the instant matter. She testified that either on September 8 or
9, which she identified as a Tuesday or a Wednesday, she had
gone to Vakil's office to report that she would be absent
because of the subpena. On direct examination, she testified
that when she reported the matter, Vakil asked if she had
made a statement or anything and she replied that she had
not done so and that she wasn 't really too sure about what
was going to happen. Then, she testified, Vakil said that she
didn't have to show up; that it was entirely up to her and there
was nothing that anybody could do if she did not show up.
When Martinez then asked Vakil if he would be at the hear-
ing, he replied according to Martinez, that he would be at the
hearing, and, in response to her further question, that Ardron
would also be there and that she had better watch what she
said because both Ardron and he would be there.
On cross-examination, Martinez' story imploded consider-
ably. Thus, she testified that she reported to Vakil that she
had been subpenaed to go to court regarding Respondent and
that there then transpired a discussion as to whether or not
the subpena was for Respondent or for her job at Respondent,
after which Vakil asked to see the subpena. Martinez testified
that she told him that she didn't have it with her and was not
exactly sure what it said, at which point Vakil told her to
bring it in so he could see it and inquired, "Well, what did
you do? Did you give a statement to anyone?" When she
denied giving a statement, Vakil then asked, according to
Martinez, if Beverly Wilson or anybody had tried to drag her
down to the Union and she responded that they had not but
that she had asked a few other people in the office if they had
subpenas, specifically Barbara Mayrand9 and Joanne Mar-
tin, and that they had said that they didn't know anything
about it. The conversation culminated, testified Martinez,
with Vakil stating that she didn't have to go to the hearing
if she didn't want to go, that it was up to her and that nothing
could be done to her if she didn't go, and with her promising
to bring the subpena to him.
Martinez then added a second conversation between Vakil
and herself regarding the subpena which she testified took
place on Thursday or Friday when she was summoned to
Vakil's office where he asked her if she had brought the
subpena. She testified that she told him that she could not
find it and that he then asked if she knew what it said, at
which point she told him that she has been in contact with
persons from the Board and that they had instructed her not
to talk about it.
9 As set forth in fn 7, counsel for the General Counsel represented that
attempts had been made to contact Mayrand as early as during the investiga-
tion , which presumably commenced in late March when the charge was
filed, but that such attempts were unsuccessful
123
Vakil testified that during the first week of September,
Martinez reported that she had received a piece of paper
which appeared to be a subpena and that, after conferring
with Ardron who expressed lack of knowledge as to why
Martinez would receive a subpena, Vakil told Martinez that
she would have to show it to him if she wanted him to explain
to her what it meant. He denied specifically that Martinez
had mentioned to him either the NLRB or the September 12
hearing date during this conversation. He further testified
that later that same week he had asked her if she had brought
the subpena to show him and that she then told him that she
had not done so and had been instructed by Mr. Cole not to
discuss the subpena in the office. Vakil testified that at that
time he did not know the identity of Mr. Cole who is, of
course, co-counsel for the General Counsel in this matter and
there is no evidence rebutting this assertion. Moreover, Vakil
denied advising Martinez at any time that she should not
honor her subpena and further denied at any time advising
her that it would be okay if she did not show up for the
proceeding for which she had been subpenaed. He testified
further that she never told him that she had to appear at a
hearing on September 12 and stated that he did not know
where she was going to be on the first day of the hearing until
he saw her in the hearing room that morning.
II ANALYSIS
A. Whether Respondent, through Carl Northrope, Violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act By Engaging in Various Acts and
Conduct
I credit Garcia, McElwain, Hernandez, and Poffenroth
with respect to their testimonies concerning what they were
told by Northrope. These four individuals impressed me as
humble and sincere persons who displayed no rancor toward
Respondent and who made an honest effort to testify accu-
rately concerning the events which they had observed and the
conversations in which they had participated. They were not
perfectly accurate, but then no human being ever is 100 per-
cent perfect. Thus, while McElwain did omit from his pretrial
affidavit the mention of the word "Union" when recounting
his March 11 conversation with Northrope, I credit his tes-
timony that to prepare for testifying in this matter, he re-
viewed his affidavit and made special note of omissions such
as this one so that his testimony would be complete. Simi-
larly, while Garcia omitted any mention of Northrope's ap-
peal to McElwain and her to conduct an election among the
employees during the course of their meeting in Northrope's
room, I feel that she attempted to testify as completely as she
could and, in any event, her testimony overall 'discloses
clearly that the coffeebreak session was conducted at
Northrope's behest. It is true, as Respondent points out in its
brief, that Hernandez made at least one comment to
Northrope displaying cynicism on the basis of Respondent's
past performance, but this hardly leads to the conclusion that
he would tailor his testimony adversely toward Respondent.
I was, in fact, highly impressed by his demeanor. Finally,
while Poffenroth may have consumed alcoholic' beverages at
the cocktail party, it was not established that she was drunk,
i.e., overcome to the point of losing control of her faculties.
Indeed, while Vakil initially asserted that she was drunk, he
124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
immediately corrected himself and said "not sober." The fact
that she had the presence of mind to telephone her husband
to report that she did not believe, that she should drive
strongly indicates that she had not lost control of her faculties
and was cognizant of events, was able to perceive what
was taking place, and was able to formulate sound
judgments-in short, she was perfectly capable of under-
standing and remembering what had been said to her.
In contrast to these four individuals , I was not impressed
by Northrope's demeanor and my review of his testimony
only strengthens my conviction that he should not be cred-
ited. While I do not believe, as the General Counsel argues,
that the evidence supports a finding that Northrop was as-
signed as Tarpin 's replacement to conduct an antiunion cam-
paign, I do believe that he took it upon himself to do so from
the moment that he set foot in McElwain's automobile at the
airport. Thus, he interrogated employees in an effort to ascer-
tain the source of their dissatisfaction; held out the prospect
of instituting an informal training program which would lead
to transfers , promotions , and concomitant wage increase;
promised to transfer Poffenroth to a job which she had
desired for at least 2 months; warned the employees that the
institution of changes would be endangered , if not completely
scuttled, by selection of the Union as their bargaining repre-
sentative; prevailed upon McElwain and Garcia to take up his
cause with the employees; and attempted to bring about the
postponement of the representation election on the basis of
his promises. Clearly such conduct is a classic example of
interference with the rights of employees under the National
Labor Relations Act.
This is not a situation , as Respondent argues, where new
management attempts to correct past inefficient and unpro-
ductive practices. See Lorraine Urbauer d/b/a Kimmel's
Shop Rite, 213 NLRB 440 (1974), for, as is best illustrated by
his conversation with Poffenroth on the morning of the elec-
tion, Northrope presented his programs as alternatives to
representation by the Union. That his training program, the
primary matter proposed to the employees, was in fact not
business oriented is demonstrated by Northrope 's own admis-
sion that it was all but nonexistent even by the time of the
hearing-6 months after he had promised its immediate insti-
tution. Nor would it be a defense, as Respondent further
argues, if the employees had initiated these conversations
with Northrope. Erie Strayer Company, 213, NLRB 344
(1974). To the contrary, it is quite clear that it was Northrope
who initiated the entire matter of instituting changes to cor-
rect employee dissatisfaction. It can hardly be persuasively
maintained that employees who had previously been let down
after promises had been made to them by Respondent's offi-
cials would suddenly decide to support a superior who had
newly appeared on the scene, about whom they knew noth-
ing, and who had not promised them anything. Neither
Garcia nor McElwain impressed me as being that naive.
Therefore, I find that as alleged in the complaint and notice
of hearing, Respondent did violate Section 8(a)(1) by
Northrope's conduct in soliciting grievances from McElwain,
Poffenroth, and Hernandez on or about March 11, and from
Garcia on March 18; by promising to transfer Poffenroth to
a job which she had desired and by promising Garcia and
McElwain that employees would be given the opportunity to
receive training for other positions in which they would re-
ceive higher wages on March 18 ; by renewing these promises
go -Garcia and McElwain on the morning of March 19 and
at the cocktail party that evening , when he said that he had
the backing of Respondent 's New York City headquarters
after having again discussed the employees ' problems and his
training program; by threatening that he could not institute
the training program or any other changes if the Union were
selected as the bargaining representative during his conversa-
tion with Hernandez during the week of March 11 and with
Poffenroth on the morning of the election , March 21; by
placing Poffenroth in the position of having to declare her
union preference when he requested that she remove her
Union's button and thereby, inferentially, threatening her
with loss of her promised transfer if she did not do so at the
cocktail party on March 19 ; and by appealing - to McElwain
and Garcia to give his program a chance by attempting to
persuade the other employees to seek a postponement of the
representation election on the evening of March 19 and on the
morning of March 20, thereby attempting to discourage em-
ployees from participating in the scheduled representation
election , soliciting and utilizing McElwain and Garcia to
influence other employees to cease supporting the Union, and
soliciting McElwain and Garcia , to interrogate other em-
ployees concerning their union sympathies through the
mechanism of an election to postpone the representation elec-
tion.
I further find that this conduct, as contended by the Peti-
tioner in its objections , is destructive of the laboratory condi-
tions required for conducting representation elections and
that, accordingly, this conduct warrants setting aside the
representation election conducted on March 21.
B. Whether Respondent, through James Ardron, Violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by Threatening Employees with
Loss of Benefits in Order To Encourage Them To Forgo
their Support of the Union
At the conclusion of the General Counsel's case, Respond-
ent made a motion that this allegation of the complaint be
dismissed and I reserved ruling. While the only witness to
testify in support of this allegation, Michael Sullivan, did
testify on direct examination that if the employees selected
the Union as their representative they would no longer enjoy
the benefits which Sullivan testified that the two men had
been discussing. Careful examination of his testimony dis-
closes that he did not really attribute this comment to Ar-
dron . Moreover, on cross-examination , Sullivan admitted
that he had attributed to Ardron on direct examination one
statement which in fact Ardron had not made and which had
merely been an assumption on Sullivan 's part . Furthermore,
when Respondent's counsel took him through the entire con-
versation, step by step, Sullivan omitted any mention of a
threatened loss of benefits should the Union prevail in the
election. Accordingly , I do not believe that Sullivan's tes-
timony establishes that Ardron said that employee benefits
would be lost if the Union won the election and, as there is
no evidence of any other unlawful statement in their conver-
sation , I shall grant Respondent 's motion and recommend
that this allegation of the complaint be dismissed. -
UNITED STATES LINES, INC.
C. Whether Respondent, through V#ay Vakil, Violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act By Engaging in Various Acts and
Conduct
Two witnesses testified to allegedly unlawful statements by
Valcnl. I simply do not credit either one of them. Beverly
Wilson admitted that she had withheld parts of her alleged
conversation with Vakil from her pretrial affidavit for reasons
which she asserted were her own and, similarly, she omitted
from her direct examination statements by Vakil which were
not inimical to Respondent's position, thereby attempting to
cast Vakil in as adverse a light as possible. While testifying,
she displayed distaste for Vakil, a supervisor who appears to
be quite unpopular among those whom he supervises. In these
circumstances, I do not credit her assertions concerning what
she was told by Vakil.
Martinez was almost openly hostile toward Vakil, appar-
ently because of his need to discipline her for her tardiness
and excessively long breaks. She admitted that she had
spoken with Wilson regarding the union situation at the Long
Beach facility and, as found above, Wilson admittedly con-
cealed evidence during the Board's investigation. Further-
more, in her haste to create a convincing story, Martinez
utilized cross-examination in an effort to embellish her tes-
timony on direct examination and in the process related how,
during the period immediately preceding the hearing, she had
spoken to an individual whom the General Counsel had been
unable to contact since the investigation of this matter com-
menced in March. Consequently, I feel that her testimony
was motivated by a desire to punish Vakil, because he had
disciplined her for her inadequate job performance.
Therefore, I do not credit either of these individuals and,
in accordance with Respondent's motion to dismiss allega-
tions concerning Vakil made at the end of the General Coun-
sel's case, shall recommend that the allegations of paragraph
8 of the complaint be dismissed.
III THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth above, occurring in
connection with the Respondent's operations described in
section II, A, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the sev-
eral States, and tend to lead, and have led, to labor disputes
burdening and obstruction commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
IV THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease
and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative ac-
tion set forth in section VI, below designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
125
3. By soliciting grievances from employees in order to en-
courage them to forego their support of the Union, by promis-
ing benefits to employees in order to encourage them to
forego their support of the Union, by threatening employees
with loss of benefits in order to encourage them to forego
their support of the Union, by placing employees in the posi-
tion of having to declare their union preference, by making
statements to employees to discourage them from participat-
ing in an NLRB election, by soliciting and utilizing em-
ployees to influence other employees against the Union, and
by soliciting employees to interrogate their fellow employees
concerning their union activities, membership, and sympa-
thies, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The objections filed by Petitioner are sustained only to
the extent that they are the same as the unfair labor practices
found in section VI, C, above, and, therefore, they warrant
setting aside the election in Case 21-RC-13610.
6. Respondent did not violate the Act through any conduct
of James Ardron and Vijay Vakil and the objections filed by
Petitioner in Case 21-RC-13610 are overruled only to the
extent that they are the same as the unfair labor practices
attributed to Ardron and Vakil.
Upon the foregoing findings of the fact, and conclusions of
law, and upon the entire record and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER")
Respondent, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Soliciting grievances from employees in order to en-
courage them to forego their support of the Union, promising
benefits to employees in order to encourage them to forego
their support of the Union, threatening employees with loss
of benefits in order to encourage them to forego their support
of the Union, placing employees in the position of having to
declare their union preference, attempting to discourage em-
ployees from participating in National Labor Relations
Board representation elections, soliciting and utilizing em-
ployees to influence other employees against the Union, and
soliciting employees to interrogate their fellow employees
concerning their union activities, membership, and sympa-
thies.
(b) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary
io effectuate the purposes of the Act:
(a) Post at its Long Beach, California, facility, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said no-
10 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 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.
1 t In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
Continued
126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tice, on forms provided b}'the Regional Directorfor Region
21, after being duly signed by Respondent 's authorized repre-
sentative, shall beposted 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 . Reason-
able steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order , what steps Re-
spondent -has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby
is, dismissed insofar as it alleges unfair labor practices not
found herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held on March 21,
1974, among Respondent's office employees be set aside, and
that Case 21-RC-13610 be severed and remanded to the
Regional Director for Region 21 for the purpose of conduct-
ing a new election at such time as he deems that circum-
stances permit the free choice of a bargaining representative.
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
We hereby notify you that:
The National Labor Relations Act, as amended , gives all
employees the following rights:
To organize themselves
To form, join, or support unions
To bargain as a group through a representative they
choose
To act together for collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection -
To refrain from any or all such activity except to the
extent that the employees ' bargaining representative
and employer have a collective -bargaining -agreement
which imposes a lawful requirement that employees
become -union members.
In recognition of these rights, we hereby notify our em-
ployees that:
WE WILL NOT solicit grievances from you in order to
encourage you to forego your support for General Truck
Drivers, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local 692, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen
& Helpers of Americam or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT promise you benefits in order to discour-
age you from supporting the above-named labor organi-
zation or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with loss of benefits in or-
der to discourage you from supporting the above-named
labor organization or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT place you in the position of having to
declare your union preferences.
WE WILL NOT attempt to discourage, you from par-
ticipating in representation elections conducted by the
National Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT solicit and utilize you to influence other
employees against the above -named labor organization
or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT Solicit you to interrogate your fellow
employees concerning their union activities , member-
ship , and sympathies.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with any of your
rights under the National Labor Relations Act set forth
above.
UNITED STATES LINES,- INC