Universal Manufacturing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 30, 1964

145 N.L.R.B. 1365 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

UNIVERSAL MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 1365
APPENDIX B
1. Page 16, line 7, strike "if".
2. Page 25, line 13, change "will reserve" to "have reserved".
3. Page 43, line 11, change "stopped from resisting" to "stopped from insisting".
4. Page 99, lines 16 and 17, change "type of" to "typed".
5. Page 121, lines 10 to 16, strike from "There" to "remains" and substitute the
following: "Even if there was one little difference the whole thing would be out of
whack, and I couldn't order them to sign an agreement incorporating verbatim the
language contained in G.C. 26, if the witness testifies that even one clause was dif-
ferent Now, should there be an order to that effect, the question would still
remain."
6. Page 151, line 12, change "employer" to "statement".
7. Page 154, line 20, change "I" to "he".
8. Page 172, lines 7 to 12, strike entire sentence beginning with "Under" and sub-
stitute the following: "Under the modern rules you can file inconsistent pleadings and
they will be treated as alternative allegations, and so I suppose here there are alterna-
tive allegations either that you didn't have any power to bind but on some theory
of estoppel there was a binding contract or that the fact that you had no power to
bind was evidence of bad faith."
9. Page 176, line 4, strike "it" and change "that" to "why".
10. Page 177, line 19, change "answer" to "complaint" and "can't" to "can".
11. Page 178, line 15, change "error" to "merit".
12. Page 178, line 19, change "he" to "it".
13. Page 178, line 24, change "Respondents" to "Union".
14. Page 184, line 17, insert after "law": "that, while a complaint".
15. Page 184, line 19, change "as" to "is".
16. Page 193, line 21, insert "not necessarily" after "would".
17. Page 196, line 8, change "fact" to "contract".
18. Page 199, line 20, insert "not" before "say".
19. Page 200, line 4, insert "he" after "felt".
20. Page 226, line 9, insert "no" before "contract".
21. Page 235, line 21, change "economic" to "non-economic".
22. Page 240, line 16, change "general specifying" to "specific".
23. Page 248, line 3, change "sign" to "means".
24. Page 259, line 20, change "same" to "contract"
25 Page 259, line 23, change "agreed and liquidation provision" to "agreement
for liquidated damages".
26. Page 262, line 4, change "litigations" to "limitations".
27. Page 264, line 16, change "to produce" to "produced".
Universal Manufacturing Co., Inc . and United Packinghouse,
Food & Allied Workers. AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 15-CA-2223-2,
15-CA-2223-3, and 15-RC-2631. January 30, 1961
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND
ELECTION
On October 3, 1963, Trial Examiner Louis Libbin issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices,
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, and also recommending that the representation
election held on December 21, 1962, in Case No. 15-RC-2631, be set
aside and a new election held, all as more fully set forth in the at-
tached Trial Examiner's Decision. He further found that the Re-
spondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices
145 NLRB No. 136.
1366 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
alleged in the complaint and recommended that such allegations be
dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent and the Clial Bing Party filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and the Respondent filed
a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record
in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommendations i of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
The Board adopts as its Order 2 the Recommended Order of the
Trial Examiner.
IT Is F RTIIEP. ORDERED that any allegations of the complaint not
specifically found by the Trial Examiner to be violative of the At
be, and they hereby are, dismissed,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held on December 21, 1962,
be, and it hereby is, set aside . The representation proceeding is
hereby remanded to the Regional Director for the purpose of con-
ducting an election at such time as he deems circumstances permit a
free choice of a bargaining representative.
' The Union excepted to the Trial Examiner's failure to pass upon and find that the
Respondent interfered with the election by permitting Police Chief Cathey and other police
officers to visit the plant shortly before the election and, without explanation to the
employees , to question certain employees as to their identities In view of our affirmance
of the Trial Examiner 's determination that the election herein should be set aside on the
grounds alleged in the Union ' s objection No 1(d ), we find it unnecessary to pass upon the
merits of its objection No 1(c)
2 The Recommended Order in the Trial Examiner 's Decision is hereby amended by sub-
stituting for the first paragraph therein the following paragraph.
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders
that Respondent , Universal Manufacturing Co , Inc , its officers , agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
TRIAL EXAMINER' S DECISION AND REPORT ON OBJECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges filed on January 16, April 1, and May 2,
1963, by United Packinghouse , Food & Allied Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called
the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the
Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region ( New Orleans , Louisiana ), issued his
complaint , dated May 31 , 1963, against Universal Manufacturing Co, Inc., herein
called the Respondent . With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as
subsequently amended, alleges that Respondent , by named supervisors and agents, en-
gaged in specified acts of interference , restraint , and coercion in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, herein called the Act. In its duly filed answer , as subsequently amended,
the Respondent denies all unfair labor practice allegations.
UNIVERSAL MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 1367
An election was conducted by the Board' s Regional Director in Case No. 15-RC-
2631 on December 21, 1962. Thereafter, on January 2, 1963, the Union filed timely
objections to the conduct of the election. On May 31, 1963, the said Regional Di-
rector issued an order directing that a hearing be held before a Trial Examiner "to
resolve the issues raised" by "Objections C and D." The order further directed
that said Trial Examiner "shall prepare and cause to be served upon the parties a
report containing resolutions of credibility, findings of fact, and recommendations to
the Board as to the disposition of said issues." On the same day, the Regional Di-
rector also issued an order, consolidating Case No. 15-RC-2631 with the complaint
cases "for the purpose of hearing, ruling, and decision by the Trial Examiner, and
that thereafter Case No. 15-RC-2631 be transferred to and continued before the
Board in Washington, D C."
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Louis Libbin at
Shreveport, Louisiana, on August 6 and 7, 1963 All parties appeared at the hear-
ing, were represented by counsel, and were given full opportunity to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, to introduce relevant evidence, to argue orally before the
close of the hearing, and to file briefs. On September 12, 1963, all parties filed briefs,
which I have fully considered
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent , a Louisiana corporation with its principal place of business in Bossier
City, Louisiana, is engaged there in the manufacture and sale of children's home play
equipment. During the 12-month period before the issuance of the complaint, a
period representative of all times material herein, Respondent purchased goods and
materials, valued in excess of $50,000, which were shipped to its place of business
from points outside the State of Louisiana; during the same period, Respondent sold
and shipped products, valued in excess of $50,000, from its place of business to points
outside the State of Louisiana.
Upon the above-admitted facts, I find, as Respondent admits in its answer, that
Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, the record shows, and I find, that United
Packinghouse, Food & Allied Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND THE OBJECTIONS TO THE CONDUCT OF
THE ELECTION
A Background
About 7 years ago, a Boilermakers AFL local was certified by the Board as the
bargaining representative of Respondent's employees and Respondent entered into
a contract with it. About 2 years later, a local of the Steelworkers was certified by
the Board. After a strike which lasted about 6 weeks, Respondent and the Steel-
workers executed a 2-year contract. At the end of the first year, the Steelworkers
sought to renegotiate certain terms and conditions. A strike ensued which lasted
about 18 months. The plant, however, was closed only for 1 or 2 days, and there-
after continued to operate with replacements. Since that time, there has been no
bargaining representative for the employees at Respondent 's plant.'
B. The unfair labor practice proceeding
On October 15, 1962, the Union in this case filed a petition with the Board's
Regional Director for an election among Respondent's employees to determine
whether they desired to designate the Union as the employees' collective-bargaining
representative. A hearing on this petition was held on November 7, and a Decision
and Direction of Election was issued by the Regional Director on November 27. At
the election held on December 21, 1962, the employees cast 33 ballots for the Union
and 38 ballots against the Union. Thereafter, on January 2, 1963, the Union filed
timely objections to the conduct of the election, which are hereinafter separately
treated.
1 The findings in this paragraph are based on the uncontradicted testimony of Isadore
Horowitz , president of Respondent
1368 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The principal issues litigated in the unfair labor practice proceeding are (1) whether
Respondent's admitted supervisors, both prior to and after the election, engaged in
conduct violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, including interrogation, threats of
reprisals, and surveillance; and (2) whether, by the conduct of Bossier City's Police
Chief Cathey at Respondent's plant prior to the election, Respondent created an
impression that it was keeping the union activities and meetings of its employees
under surveillance, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
1. Conduct of President Horowitz
The complaint alleges that President Horowitz (1) interrogated an employee about
his union membership, desires, and activities, (2) told an employee that Respondent's
intent in bargaining would be to force the Union to strike, and (3) kept union meet-
ings under surveillance in Shreveport, Louisiana.
a. Conversation with Chester Piggee
Employee Chester Piggee testified as follows concerning a conversation which
Horowitz had with him about 2 weeks before the election About 10:30 or 11 a.m.,
Horowitz approached Piggee and Foreman Raney while they were in Respondent's
hardware department. Horowitz stood there a few minutes, at which time Raney
left Piggee for the boat department. Upon Raney's departure, Horowitz asked
Piggee how he felt. Piggee replied that he felt "just fine." Horowitz then inquired
if Piggee had received any of the Company's letters. When Piggee answered in the
affirmative, Horowitz asked if Piggee understood them. Piggee replied that he
thought he did. Horowitz then stated that he wanted Piggee to understand what
would happen if the Union came into the plant. Horowitz commented that Piggee
should know about the union conflict that went on in past years, pointing out that
those unions had not done anything for the employees and that neither would this
new union. Horowitz then stated that he heard some of the employees say that
Piggee had something to do with the Union. When Piggee replied that Horowitz
could not go by what he heard because it did not have to be true, Horowitz asked
Piggee how he felt about the Union. Piggee answered that he was not going to say
how he felt about the Union or whether he would vote for or against it. Horowitz
then stated that some of the employees had been in Horowitz' office to talk to him
about the Union and that, since Piggee was not in that group, Horowitz had decided
to come out to talk to Piggee Horowitz added that some of the employees had told
him that they would vote against the Union. Piggee replied that this did not nec-
essarily mean that these employees would in fact vote against the Union, pointing
out that Horowitz would not know how the employees actually voted in the election.
Horowitz then stated that he felt satisfied to let Piggee know just what he (Piggee)
was up against, emphasizing that if there was ever another strike in the plant Piggee
would never be able to get back in the plant again because it would not be like the
last two strikes. Piggee asked Horowitz why he thought there would be a strike.
Horowitz replied that there would be a strike "because I [Horowitz] am not coming
to any of the Union's agreements," and reiterated that Piggee would never get back
in the plant if he ever walked out on strike.
Horowitz remembered having had a conversation with Piggee in the hardware
department about 2 weeks before the election. He testified that because Piggee
had been ailing, he asked Piggee how he was feeling, and that Piggee replied he
was feeling better. Horowitz admitted that he then asked Piggee if he had received
the letters which the Company had sent out and whether he understood them and
had any questions to ask about them. Horowitz testified that he was referring to
the bulletins and letters which the Company was mailing to all the employees
during this period, setting forth the Company's reasons for opposing the Union.
According to Horowitz' further testimony, Piggee answered Horowitz' last question
in the affirmative and then stated something to the effect that he did not understand
why "we were in this mess," that he did not "want any part of it," that he knew
how Horowitz felt, and that he was going to find another job if there was a strike.
Horowitz denied saying that the only reason he came out there was because
Piggee had not come in to talk to him, or asking Piggee how he felt about the
Union or what his sympathies were, or stating that there was bound to be a strike
if the Union gets in because he (Horowitz) was not going to agree to anything the
Union wanted, or stating that Piggee would never get back in the plant if he ever
walked out on strike. Horowitz did admit that it was about that time that he had
met with a group of employees, at their request, that the employees at that time
informed him that they were for the Company and did not want any part of the
UNIVERSAL MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 1369
Union, and that he thanked them and reminded them that they all knew how he
and the Company felt about not wanting a union . He further admitted that on
prior occasions he had made reference to the fact that in the event of an economic
strike any employee who went out on strike could be permanently replaced without
notice, whereas in the last strike the Company gave notice to strikers before re-
placing them.
Piggee had been employed by Respondent as a full-time employee since 1948,
except for a period from 1951 to 1953 when he was in the service during the
Korean war. He testified adversely to Respondent despite the fact that he was
still employed by Respondent at the time when he testified. Unlike Horowitz,
Piggee impressed me as a frank and candid witness and testified in a manner which
inspired confidence in his veracity. In addition, be testified with the detailed
specificity which normally does not accompany a fabrication. Upon consideration
of all the foregoing, including Horowitz' admissions and the demeanor of the
witnesses , I credit Piggee's version of Horowitz' conversation with him, as herein-
above set forth.
b. Alleged surveillance
In November and December 1962, the Union held some meetings at a YMCA
located on Texas Avenue in Shreveport, Louisiana. A few witnesses for the Gen-
eral Counsel testified that on one of the scheduled meeting nights in December,
prior to the election, they saw Horowitz drive by the YMCA in his automobile
and after a few minutes drive back again. They admitted that Texas Avenue is
one of the main thoroughfares through the city and that would be one of the routes
that could be taken from the plant in Bossier City.
Horowitz testified that it was not unusual for him to be driving along Texas
Avenue, and that one of the routes on his way home from the plant would take
him past the YMCA on Texas Avenue. He further testified that he frequently ate
dinner at a cafe located on Texas Avenue in that vicinity. He remembered an
occasion in the latter part of 1962 when he left his office to drive to the Texas
Avenue cafe and when he got within a block of the cafe remembered that he had
left his briefcase on his desk, which contained some work he intended to do at home,
and that he turned around and drove back to pick up his briefcase. He further
testified that he did not know that the YMCA was located in that vicinity until
a day or two before his testimony.
Horowitz has thus given a valid explanation for driving by the YMCA on the
occasion in question, an explanation which has not been refuted and which is
inherently plausible. It is interesting to note that the only allegations on which
evidence was adduced which are not discussed by the General Counsel in his brief,
are those relating to surveillance by Horowitz and Foreman Sanders 2 I am con-
vinced and find that the preponderance of the record evidence does not support
the allegation that Horowitz kept union meetings under surveillance in Shreveport,
Louisiana.
2. Conduct of Vice President Smyrni
The complaint alleges that in January 1963, Vice President Smyrni threatened
to discharge an employee because of his union membership, desires, and activities;
that he instructed employees not to discuss the Union with other employees; and
that he created an impression among the employees that Respondent was keeping
the employees' union activities and meetings under surveillance.
No evidence at all was adduced in support of the surveillance phase of the
allegation The only evidence adduced in support of the remainder of the allega-
tion was the testimony of Bazie Bates, who was customarily employed by Re-
spondent as a seasonal employee. Bates testified that during an indoctrination talk
given in Respondent's office in January 1963 to him and a group of other newly
hired seasonal employees, Vice President Smyrni informed the group that there
had been an attempt to get the Union in the plant, asked if they had ever worked
on a union job, and told them that Respondent did not want a union in its plant
and that if they did not want to work and do as he said he could fire them just as
he hired them. He further testified that Smyrni told the group that there were some
union workers in the plant, that they did not have to worry about them, and that
they could do what they wanted about talking to them. On cross-examination,
Bates admitted that Smyrni read the content of a statement, which is in evidence as
Respondent's Exhibit No. 2. This statement explained why Respondent did not
2 He does state that such failure should not be construed as an abandonment of any
findings in support of the complaint which can be drawn from the record as a whole.
1370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
want a union in the plant, about the past strikes and loss of jobs, about the
possibility of another economic strike and permanent loss of jobs if the Union got
in, and about the possibility of another election at some future time. The statement
pointed out that someone pushing the Union may approach them, and suggested
that the best thing to do would be to tell the union man that they are not interested.
Bates further testified that Smyrni spoke to them about 90 minutes but only read
from the paper about 8 or 9 minutes.
Smyrni testified that these indoctrination talks were the usual procedure for newly
hired employees, that the talk takes about 25 or 30 minutes, that part of the time is
taken up by the reading of Respondent's Exhibit No. 2, and that the remainder of the
talk deals with plant procedures and company policies unrelated to union activities.
He denied making any other remarks about the Union that are not contained in
Respondent's Exhibit No. 2. He denied threatening to discharge any employee
because of his union membership, or giving any instructions relative to union dis-
cussions which were not contained in the statement which he read.
I am of the opinion that to the extent that Bates' testimony varies from the
statements in Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 in any significant respect, it is due to a
misunderstanding by Bates as to what was actually said by Smyrni. In any event,
I do not credit Bates' testimony to the extent that it conflicts with that of Smyrni.
I find that there is nothing in the prepared statement which may reasonably be
construed as threatening employees with discharge because of their union member-
ship, desires, or activities, or as instructing employees not to discuss the Union with
other employees; and the General Counsel makes no contrary contention. I find that
the General Counsel has not sustained his burden of proof with respect to the allega-
tions involving Vice President Smyrni.
3. Conduct of Fabrication Department Supervisor Tommy Sanders
The complaint alleges that Tommy Sanders threatened employees with reprisals
for supporting or voting for the Union, solicited an employee to use his influence to
induce another employee to cease his activities on behalf of the Union, engaged
in surveillance of union meetings in Shreveport, and created the impression that
Respondent was keeping union activities and meetings under surveillance.
a. Incident involving Nathan Betford
Nathan Betford, a full-time employee, testified that about 2 weeks before the elec-
tion, Tommy Sanders came over to where he was working on the line and engaged
in the following conversation with Betford: Sanders asked Betford which way he was
going to vote. Betford replied that he did not know then whether or not he would
vote for the Union. Sanders then told Betford that it would be best not to vote for
the Union because Betford might get hurt.
Sanders denied having asked the foregoing question or having made the fore-
going statement. He further denied having had any conversation with Betford
where the Union was discussed. He admitted that he knew a union election was to
be held in December.
From the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying under oath, I am convinced
that Betford is the more reliable and trustworthy witness. He testified adversely
to Respondent despite the fact that he was still employed by Respondent at the time
when he testified. I do not credit Sanders' denials, credit the testimony of Betford,
and find that Sanders asked the question and made the statement attributed to him
by Betford 3
b. Incident involving Oliver Collins
About 2 weeks before the election, Tommy Sanders went up to Oliver Collins
who was working by the water fountain, stated that he had noticed that Collins
had signed a union card, warned that Collins would be "out a lot of money" if he
went along with "that union mess," and commented that Christmas was a bad time
to be out on strike. Sanders then departed, saying that he (Sanders) would leave
it up to Collins to do as he pleased?
3In making this credibility resolution, I have considered the fact that Betford's pretrial
affidavit states that Sanders told him not to vote for the Union or he might get hurt, but
does not contain any statement that Betford was questioned by Saunders about which way
he was going to vote
4 The findings in this paragraph are based on the credited testimony of Oliver Collins,
who impressed me as a forthright and candid witness. Sanders denied having made the
statements set forth in the text. I do not credit Sanders' denials.
UNIVERSAL MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 1371
c. Incident involving Joe Henry
In the latter part of October 1962, Joe Henry, a full-time employee of 6 years'
standing, was called into the office by Tommy Sanders where the following conver-
sation occurred: Sanders asked Henry what was going on out there in the plant.
Henry asked Sanders what he was talking about. Sanders replied, "You know."
Henry then stated that he did not know what was going on in the plant. Sanders
insisted that Henry knew what was going on in the plant and warned that if it did
not stop someone might get hurt. Henry again asked Sanders what he was talking
about, but Sanders refused to say and changed the subject, commenting that Oliver
Collins was loafing on the job. Henry assured Sanders that he would try to prevent
Collins from loafing but that he would not have anything to do with "the other
thing" because Collins was a man and could do as he pleased. On cross-examina-
tion, Henry admitted that he was a leadman, that Collins was in his gang, and that
Sanders told him to keep Collins at work.
The findings in the preceding paragraph are based on the credited testimony of
Joe Henry, who was still employed by Respondent and who impressed me as a
reliable and trustworthy witness. Sanders admitted calling Henry into the superin-
tendent's office in the fall of 1962. Sanders testified that he had seen Henry talking
and "grouping" with other employees, including Collins, that this condition had
become worse and was affecting production, and that he explained to Henry, who
was the leadman, that this had to stop or someone would lose his job. He denied
having made the other statements attributed to him by Collins. He admitted,
however, on cross-examination that Henry's first response was that he did not
understand what Sanders was talking about. I credit Henry's version of the con-
versation with Sanders as previously set forth.
d. Alleged surveillance
A number of witnesses testified to observing Sanders before the election in the
vicinity of, or entering, or in the Jolly Bar about 2 hours before a union meeting
scheduled to be held at the YMCA on Texas Avenue in Shreveport, Louisiana. The
Jolly Bar is a colored bar located on Texas Avenue about half a block from the
YMCA. It is not disputed that Sanders himself was the owner of a colored bar.
Sanders testified that he did go into the Jolly Bar after 5 p in. several weeks before
the election, that he saw several of Respondent's employees there at the time, that
his purpose in going there was to talk to his friend, Uling Fong, who was the owner,
about buying Sanders' bar, that he had previously spoken to Fong about it briefly
on a prior occasion, that Fong was not present on this occasion, that he remained in
the Jolly Bar about 10 or 15 minutes having a beer and talking to Fong's wife. and
that he did not know that a union meeting was scheduled to be held in the vicinity.
He further testified that his bar was subleased at the time of the instant hearing.
In this instance, as in Horowitz' case, Sanders has given a valid explanation for
being in the vicinity of and in the Jolly Bar on the occasion in question, an explana-
tion which has not been refuted and which is inherently plausible Also, as in
Horowitz' case, the General Counsel makes no reference to the testimony relating
to the allegation of surveillance. I am convinced and find that the preponderance
of the record evidence does not support the allegation that Sanders kept union meet-
ings under surveillance in Shreveport, Louisiana.
4 Conduct of Steel Department Supervisor Don Maples
The complaint alleges that Don Maples interrogated employees about their union
membership, desires, and activities, threatened employees with reprisals for voting
for the Union or because of their union desires or activities, and solicited employees
to advise management that they were rejecting the Union.
a. Incidents involving Mack Wiggins and James Howard
About 1 or 2 weeks before the election, Mack Wiggins, an employee of 7 years'
standing who was still working for Respondent at the time of his testimony in this
proceeding, was proceeding to the butane pump to service the lift truck which he
operated when Don Maples stopped him and engaged in the following conversa-
tion: Maples first asked Wiggins what he would do if that "old mad dog" tried to
bite him Wiggins replied that he would probably get a stick and try to kill it.
Maples then explained that his question was not actually directed at a mad dog,
stating that "I am not speaking about that, I'm talking about some other fellows
in here and trying to get a union in here. And some of them are going to get run
1372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
off." Maples added that he could make the necessary arrangements for Wiggins
"to go see the boss." Wiggins replied that he had worked there for over 6 years
and never "had to go see the boss" and asked, "Why should I have to go see him
now?" Maples then explained that he had heard that employees Joe Henry and
John Henry Moe (Moore) were going to get run off, and pointed out that it was
not too late for Wiggins "to see the boss." Wiggins again replied that he did not
think that was necessary.
On several occasions during the 2-week period before the election, Maples asked
employee James Howard to go and talk to Horowitz and to tell Horowitz that he
(Howard) did not want anything to do with the Union.
The findings in the preceding two paragraphs are based on the credited testimony
of employees Wiggins and Howard. Maples testified that he recalled having a
conversation about 1 or 2 weeks before the election with Wiggins in which he asked
Wiggins how many gallons of butane he had put in the lift truck. He testified that
it was on that occasion that Wiggins asked him if it was too late to go in to talk to
Horowitz, and that Maples replied that he would make an appointment for him. He
testified that Howard also asked him if he could go in and talk to Horowitz and
that he also told Howard that he would arrange an appointment for him. He denied
having made the other statements attributed to him by Wiggins and Howard.
Despite his alleged promises to arrange appointments with Horowitz for these two
employees, Maples admitted on cross-examination that he never made any such
appointments for them. As previously noted, Horowitz admitted that about
December 14 a group of employees requested an audience with him, at which time
they told him that they were for the Company and did not want any part of the
Union Under all the circumstances, including the demeanor of the witnesses while
testifying under oath, I do not credit Maples' denials and accept as true the versions
of the conversations to which Wiggins and Howard testified.
5. Conduct of Shipping Department Supervisor Thomas Sessums
The complaint alleges that Sessums interrogated an employee concerning union
membership, desires, and activities.
About 3 or 4 weeks before Collins' discharge in June 1963, Sessums called Oliver
Collins off the truck which he was loading and replaced him with employee Jones
while Sessums engaged in the following conversation with Collins: Sessums asked
Collins if he had been to union meetings . Collins stated that he had. Sessums
then asked Collins what was discussed at the meetings . When Collins replied, "dif-
ferent things," Sessums called Jones off the truck and departed. Collins then resumed
his work of loading the truck .5
6. Conduct of Police Chief Cathey
The complaint alleges that Respondent, by James L. Cathey, acting as an agent
for Respondent, on or about November 20, 1962, in Respondent's plant, created
an impression that Respondent was keeping the union activities and meetings of
its employees under surveillance.
a. The November incident
In the latter part of November 1962, in connection with an investigation of the
P & H Tube Company, located next door to Respondent's plant in Bossier City,
James L. Cathey, chief of police of Bossier City, walked through the back end of
Respondent's plant.
b. The Collins incident in December
On December 7, 1962, Isadore Horowitz, Respondent's president, called Police
Chief Cathey on the telephone and read a written statement from one of Respond-
ent's employees, Hunt, to the effect that, during a discussion with Collins about
the Union, Collins stated that "he had heard about the violence and trouble in the
last strike and that it wasn't nothing compared to what was going to happen this
time." Horowitz told Cathey that he thought he had better report this because he
did not want anyone ending up in a fight or getting hurt. Cathey replied that he had
better come in and check it over. Later that afternoon, Cathey appeared at the plant,
talked to Horowitz and Vice President Smyrni, and was given a copy of Hunt's writ-
5 The findings in this paragraph are based on the credited testimony of Oliver Collins,
whom I have previously found to be a credible witness Sessums merely denied that the
entire incident occurred . I do not credit his denials.
UNIVERSAL MANUFACTURING CO., INC . 1373
ten statement. Cathey then asked permission to talk to Collins. Smyrni and
Horowitz accompanied Cathey into the plant to the location where Collins was
working. Smyrni then told Collins that "Mr. Cathey here, the Chief of Police, wants
to talk to you."
According to Collins' testimony on direct examination, Cathey then made the
following statements to Collins: Cathey stated that he had proof that Collins
"put a union in here and had threatened some of the workers"; that he (Cathey)
was "100 percent behind the Company" and if the employees went out on strike
they "could be replaced in the next instant"; and that if he (Cathey) had to come
back to the plant again to talk to Collins, "he was going to take him (Collins)
down." Cathey then asked Collins if he understood this and Collins replied that
he did. On cross-examination, Collins testified that Cathey also said that he had
a written statement to the effect that Collins had threatened some of the workers
but refused to let Collins see the statement. When asked if Cathey did not say
that he was going to keep down any violence and that each side would have to
obey the law, Collins testified, "I don't remember him saying that."
According to Cathey's testimony on direct examination, the following statements
were made: Cathey asked Collins if he had made the statements attributed to him
in Hunt's written statement. When Collins denied it, Cathey advised Collins that,
if there was any violence on the part of either the employees or the employer, the
police department would step in and stop all violence on the side of either party,
that "that has been our policy in the past" and that "that would be our policy in
the future." Cathey denied having made the other statements attributed to him
by Collins. On cross-examination, Cathey explained that he told Collins that if a
strike did occur "the police department would not tolerate any violence whatsoever."
Cathey's testimony and denials were corroborated by Smyrni, who remained
nearby and overheard the conversation.
For reasons hereinafter indicated in my concluding findings, I find it unnecessary
to resolve this conflict in testimony.
c. Incident on day before the election
On the day before the election, Cathey, Sheriff Wagner of Bossier Parish,
Chief of Detectives Norris, and an additional police officer, accompanied by Smyrni
and Horowitz, toured the plant. According to Cathey's undisputed testimony, they
had received a "flyer" containing the description of an escaped Negro prisoner,
together with information that the escapee followed the type of work performed
at Respondent's plant, and went to the plant for the purpose of checking to ascertain
if the escaped prisoner was working at the plant under an assumed name. Accord-
ing to the undisputed testimony of Cathey, Smyrni, and Horowitz, Cathey informed
Respondent's officers that they were there on official business looking for an
escapee who followed this type of work, and asked and were given permission
to walk through the plant for that purpose. During the course of the plant tour,
Cathey now and then pointed to an employee and asked Smyrni to identify him.
On some occasions, Smyrni could not do so without asking the employee his name.
The employee would give his name or reply in the affirmative when Smyrni asked
if he had correctly stated his name. Cathey made notes in a folder which he was
carrying. The police spent about 20 to 25 minutes in the plant. None of the
employees were ever informed of the alleged purpose of this police tour or as to
why they were being identified or questioned about their names.
7. Concluding findings
I find that the allegations concerning President Horowitz have been sustained,
except for that relating to surveillance. As previously found, during working
hours before the election, Horowitz interrogated employee Piggee at the latter's
place of work at the plant concerning Piggee's feelings, sympathies, activities, and
views concerning the Union in the impending election, impressed upon Piggee that
if the Union came into the plant an economic strike was inevitable because Horowitz
would refuse to agree to any of the Union's demands, and emphasized that, unlike
the last two strikes, Piggee would then be replaced without notice. Horowitz'
interrogation, under the circumstances and in the context disclosed by this record,
constituted interference, restraint, and coercion within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the effect. Equally violative of that section is the reasonable impli-
cation of Horowitz' further remarks that, if the Union were selected as the em-
ployees' bargaining representative, then, regardless of the nature of the Union's
1374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bargaining proposals, he would so conduct negotiations that a strike and the immedi-
ate resultant loss of jobs through replacement would be inevitable.6
With respect to Supervisor Tommy Sanders, I find that only the allegation relating
to threats of reprisals for supporting or voting tor the Union has been sustained.
As previously found, Sanders' warning to employee Betford that he might get hurt
if he voted for the Union and his warning to employee Collins that he would be
"out a lot of money," if he went along with "that union mess," were clear threats
of economic reprisals in the event the Union was successful in the impending elec-
tion. Such threats for exercising the employees' statutory rights are obvious viola-
tions of Section 8(a)(1). As for Sanders' statements to employee Joe Henry in
the latter part of October 1962, as previously found, I am of the opinion that they
-are too vague to warrant an inference that Sanders had reference to the Union or
to any employee's union activities.
I find that the allegations relating to Supervisor Don Maples have been sustained.
'Thus, as previously found, about a week or so before the election, Maples questioned
employee Wiggins about his attitude toward the Union, warned that some of the
employees were "going to get run off" for trying to get the Union in here, and offered
to make the necessary arrangements for Wiggins to see Horowitz about it before
it was too late. During the same period, Maples on several occasions solicited
employee Howard to go to Horowitz and to tell Horowitz that he (Howard) did not
want anything to do with the Union. Such interrogation, threats, and solicitations
reasonably tended to interfere with, restrain, and coerce employees in the exercise
of their statutory rights in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
I find that the allegation concerning Supervisor Thomas Sessums has been sus-
tained. In view of the unlawful conduct engaged in by President Horowitz and
Supervisors Sanders and Maples, I find that Supervisor Sessums' conduct in relieving
Collins from his assigned duties for the express purpose of interrogating him con-
cerning his attendance at union meetings and as to what was discussed at these
meetings, as previously found, is also violative of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
With respect to the conduct of Police Chief James L. Cathey, I am of the
opinion that the preponderance of the record evidence concerning Cathey's visits
to the plant on one occasion in the latter part of November and on the two occasions
in December 1962,7 even accepting Collins' version of what Cathey said, as previously
detailed, does not warrant a finding that the General Counsel has sustained the
allegation that by such conduct the Respondent "created an impression that Respond-
ent was keeping the union activities and meetings of its employee under surveillance."
No evidence at all was adduced in support of the allegations that Supervisors Barnes
and Tommy Sanders engaged in conduct violative of the Act. And, as I have previ-
ously found, the General Counsel has not sustained the allegation that Respondent
violated the Act by the conduct of Vice President Smyrni. Accordingly, I will rec-
ommend that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges that the Respondent
violated the Act by conduct of Vice President Smyrni, Supervisors Barnes and
Tommy Sanders, and Police Chief Cathey, and insofar as it alleges violations, not
herein found, by the conduct of President Horowitz and Supervisor Sanders.
C. Report on objections
1. Objection No. 1(d) 8
One of the objections upon which the hearing was directed reads as follows:
"The Company without economic need for new employees and solely for the
purpose of coercing its work force into voting against the Union placed an ad in
the local paper prior to the election asking for female applicants for jobs at the
plant to call in person only, during working hours, the purpose of which was to
frighten the employees in the unit into believing that they were in imminent danger
of replacement."
Respondent 's operations are seasonal in nature , with the busy season running
from about the first of the year until about June . The work force of production
employees ranges from about 70, who work regularly all year around, to about 225
to 250 at the peak of the busy season . The seasonal workers are recruited by recall-
8 Temas Industries , Inc ; at at., 139 NLRB 365, 368; Ideal Baking Company of Tennessee,
Inc, 143 NLRB 546.
4 Although the allegation relative to Cathey, specifies only "on or about November 20,
1962," I have considered all three visits as they were fully litigated.
8 Unless otherwise indicated, the factual findings in this section are based on credited
testimony which is either admitted or undenled.
UNIVERSAL MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 1375
ing available, satisfactory employees who had worked in prior seasons and by hiring
new employees to replace seasonal workers who are unavailable or unsatisfactory.
Prior to 1963, Respondent 's production employees were all males and for the
most part Negroes. On December 12, 1962, Respondent placed an advertisement in
the help wanted section of the Shreveport paper, calling for "WHITE WOMEN
OVER 30," who are "able to work on production machines and packing equipment,"
and promising "good working conditions" and "steady employment." The advertise-
ment required applicants to apply at the plant only in person "between 9 a.m. and
11 a.m."
There was a great response to this advertisement . Beginning with a few days after
its appearance and continuing for a period of 4 or 5 days, groups of white female
applicants, ranging from 20 to 50 in number, were escorted through the plant dur-
ing working hours by Superintendent Levine, Vice President Smyrni, or President
Horowitz. The applicants were shown the machinery and the various types of work
that were performed, with the employee at work demonstrating his particular job.
Some employees heard the management representative explain to the group how
light the work was, point out that the material was not too heavy, and assure the
applicants that they could do the work. Employees also heard some of the applicants
make comments, as they were walking by, to the effect that the work looked easy
and that they could do it. As Supervisor Maples was walking by during one of these
tours , he remarked to employee Wiggins, "See those white women , they are going to
have your job." 9 About 150 white female applicants were paraded through the plant
on these tours before the election. Although an additional 100 to 150 applicants
applied, the tours were thereafter discontinued and only their applications were
retained.
During the 1963 busy season , about 50 of the white female applicants were em-
ployed in addition to the recalled seasonal workers who had worked in prior seasons.
The 50 white females were not hired at one time but rather a few at a time on an
experimental basis in various departments , commencing with the first group of about
5 in the hardware department about the middle of January 1963. No employee who
desired to work was in fact replaced by a white female employee.
Smyrni and Horowitz testified that for some time in the past they had been con-
sidering the employment of females in certain production operations , that they had
had occasion to observe females used to advantage on certain similar operations in
other plants, that in December 1962 , they decided to experiment with the employ-
ment of female production workers during the approaching busy season , that as
part of their advanced planning for the 1963 season they placed the advertisement
in the newspaper for female applicants for employment , and that they decided to
conduct the applicants through the plant to show them the working conditions and
the type of work being performed.
The record does support Respondent 's contention that it did have a need for
hiring some totally new employees during its busy season because there usually
were not enough available satisfactory recalled employees who had worked in prior
sessions . In prior years , such new employees admittedly were exclusively males,
were hired through the employment services , and were never toured through the
plant before being employed . In this instance , Respondent's conduct in advertising
in the newspaper for white female help and in conducting tours, for the first time,
of groups of female applicants through the plant for a period of 4 or 5 days,i9 under
the circumstances disclosed by this record and particularly in view of its timing, leads
me to conclude that such conduct was calculated to, at least in part, and that it did,
create the impression or fear among the employees that Respondent was building
up a pool of potential replacements in the event the Union was designated as their
bargaining representative . Such fear or impression would obviously tend to interfere
with the employees' freedom of choice.
The following considerations primarily impel me to conclude that Respondent's
conduct was motivated , at least in part , by its intention to create just such fear or
impression : Although the election was scheduled for December 21, the advertisement
was placed in the newspaper on December 12, and the conducted tours commenced
a few days later and continued for a period of 4 or 5 days before the election. The
Respondent intended to employ some females for the 1963 busy season , but ad-
9 This finding Is based on the credited testimony of Wiggins . I do not credit Maples'
denial
10 Respondent 's contention In Its brief that its conduct In conducting the tours are not
attacked in the objection and therefore may not serve as a basis for any findings that It
affected the election , is without merit. This conduct is so related to the specific wording
of the objection as to be considered part and parcel thereof.
1376 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mittedly only in small groups and on a gradual and experimental basis. Indeed, the
first group consisted only of five females and was not employed until about the
middle of January. The plant was shutdown for only 1 day during the Christmas
holiday. Respondent, however, offered no satisfactory explanation as to why, in
view of all the circumstances , the placement of the advertisement and the tours of the
plant could not have been deferred until December 22, a period of only 10 days.
Moreover, while the females admittedly were to be employed as seasonal workers,
the advertisement promised "steady employment." And while only 50 females were
eventually hired throughout the entire 1963 busy season , nevertheless Respondent
paraded 150 applicants through the plant in groups of over 20 and for a period of
4 or 5 days. Not only had new applicants never before openly been toured through
the plant in this manner by management, but no such large number of totally new
employees as were toured through the plant had ever before been hired for the busy
season. Despite this unprecedented conduct just before the election and their
awareness of the fact that employees had expressed apprehension concerning their
possible replacements by these females, neither Smyrni nor Horowitz made any
announcement or explanation to the employees generally concerning the advertise-
ment for white female help and the plant tours." And after the election on
December 21, the plant tours ceased, although there were an additional 100 to
150 female applicants. Finally, Respondent' s conduct must be evaluated in the light
of the prior and contemporaneous admitted conduct of Horowitz and Smyrni in
frequently impressing upon the assembled employees their opposition to the Union
and that the selection of the Union as bargaining representative could result in
another strike during which the employees would permanently lose their jobs through
replacements.
In any event, even assuming that Respondent did not expressly intend to create
any fear or impression among the employees of job replacements and that the
timing of its conduct in relation to the election was purely coincidental, the test
nevertheless remains as to "whether the conduct was such as to tend to interfere
with the exercise of a free choice of a bargaining representative." 12 I find that
this test has been fully satisfied here. The reasonable effect of Respondent's con-
duct upon the employees must be considered in the light of all the surrounding
circumstances disclosed by the record. These include, in addition to what has
already been mentioned, (1) the fact that there had been no threats of a strike or
any indication that the Union would make unreasonable demands if it won the
election; (2) Horowitz' emphasis to an employee, as previously found, that if the
Union became the bargaining representative, then, regardless of the nature of its
bargaining proposals, he would so conduct negotiations that a strike and the em-
ployees' permanent loss of jobs through replacement would be inevitable; (3) the
warning of Supervisor Maples to another employee, made while the plant tours
of female applicants were in progress, that "those white women . . . are going
to have your job"; (4) the overheard comments of a high ranking representative
of management, made while escorting the groups during the course of these tours,
to the effect that the work was not difficult and his assurance to the applicants
that they could do the work; (5) the overhead comments of some of the female
applicants, made during the course of these plant tours, to the effect that the
work looked easy and that they could do it; and (6) the absence of any explanation
to the employees concerning the advertisement and the tours. So considered,
Respondent's conduct in advertising for and touring the plant with groups of female
applicants, regardless of what may have been Respondent's true motive, reason-
ably tended to create the fear or impression among the employees that Respondent
was building up a pool of applicants for use as potential replacements in the event
that the Union won the election 13 Respondent's conduct therefore created an
atmosphere which could not help but tend to interfere with the employees' exercise
of a free choice of a bargaining representative.
Accordingly, I will recommend that the objection to the election be sustained on
this ground alone, that the election be set aside, and that a new one be directed.
u Smyrni admitted that reports were turned into the office by supervisors that employees
were asking why these women were going through the plant. Horowitz testified that some
employees did ask him if the women were going to replace them and that he replied that
Respondent had no intention of doing so. He further testified that he instructed the super-
visors to answer similar questions in a similar manner. The record does not show whether
these instructions were followed or whether additional employees asked similar questions
12 Class-Tste Industries, Inc, 133 NLRB 1287, 1289
13 See Storkline Corporation, 135 NLRB 1146, 1149, and 142 NLRB 875.
UNIVERSAL MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 1377
2. Objection No. 1(c)
The other objection upon which the hearing was directed relates to the plant
visits by Police Chief Cathey and other officers, as previously set forth. In view
of my findings and recommendations with respect to objection No. 1(d), herein-
above set forth, I find it unnecessary to, and do not, pass upon this objection.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have
a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I will
recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
I will also recommend that the election held on December 21, 1962, in Case No.
15-RC-2631 be set aside and that Case No. 15-RC-2631 be remanded to the Re-
gional Director for the Fifteenth Region for the purpose of conducting a new
election at such time as he deems that circumstances permit the free choice of a
bargaining representative.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Universal Manufacturing Co., Inc., is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. United Packinghouse, Food & Allied Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By interrogating employees concerning their union feelings, sympathies, views,
activities, and attendance and discussions at union meetings, by indicating to em-
ployees that if the Union became the employees' bargaining representative, nego-
tiations would be so conducted as to force a strike with the resultant loss of jobs
through replacements, by threatening employees with economic loss for supporting
or voting for the Union in a pending election, by threatening employees with loss
of their jobs for trying to get the Union in the plant, and by soliciting employees
to advise Respondent's president that they were rejecting the Union, all as previ-
ously detailed in section III, B, 7, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the
Act and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices by the conduct of Vice
President Smyrni, Supervisors Barnes and Tommy Sanders, and Police Chief James
L. Cathey, or by any other conduct not herein found to be violative of the Act of
President Horowitz and Supervisor Sanders.
6. Respondent has engaged in conduct interfering with the employees' freedom
of choice in the selection of a bargaining representative.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
upon the entire record in the case, I recommend that Respondent , Universal Manu-
facturing Co., Inc., Bossier City , Louisiana , its officers, agents, successors and
assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating employees concerning their union feelings, sympathies, views,
activities , and attendance and discussions at union meetings , or soliciting employees
to advise management that they were rejecting United Packinghouse, Food & Allied
Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , in a manner constituting
interference , restraint , or coercion within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
734-070-64-vol. 145-88
1378 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Threatening employees with economic loss, including job loss, if they
,designated or attempted to get a union selected as their collective-bargaining
representative.
(c) Indicating to employees that, in the event of their selection of a collective-
bargaining representative, negotiations would be so conducted as to force a strike
with the resultant loss of jobs through replacement.
,(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist
the above-named or any labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, to engage in other concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right is affected by the
provisos in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its plant in Bossier City, Louisiana, copies of the attached notice
,marked "Appendix A." 14 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Fifteenth Region (New Orleans, Louisiana), shall, after being duly
,signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent, be posted by it immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by said Respond-
ent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(b) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date
of this Decision and Recommended Order, what steps the Respondent has taken
to comply therewith.15
I further recommend that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges that
the Respondent violated the Act by conduct other than that found to be violative in
this Decision.
I further recommend that the election held on December 21, 1962, in Case No.
15-RC-2631 be set aside and that Case No. 15-RC-2631 be remanded to the
Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region for the purpose of conducting a new
election at such time as he deems that circumstances permit the free choice of a
`bargaining representative.16
14 In the event that this Recommended Order shall be adopted by the Board, the words
°'A Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by
a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "A Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "A Decision
and Order."
is In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
10 In the event the Respondent fails or refuses to comply with the terms of the Order in
Case No. 15-CA-223, I recommend that the said Regional Director should also be author-
ized to conduct the new election recommended herein upon the written request of the
Union. Ideal Baking Company of Tennessee , Inc, 143 NLRB 546, footnote 9.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
.Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with economic loss, including job loss,
if they designated or attempted to get United Packinghouse, Food & Allied
Workers,-AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, selected as their collective-
bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT indicate to our employees that, in the event of their selection
.of the above-named or any other labor organization as their collective-
bargaining representative, negotiations would be so conducted as to force a
strike with the-resultant loss of jobs through replacements.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union feelings,
sympathies , views, activities , and attendance and discussions at union meetings,
DOVE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1379
and WE WILL NOT solicit employees to advise management that they were
rejecting the above-named or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join,
or assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective-bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that
such right is affected by the provisos in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
UNIVERSAL MANUFACTURING CO., INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, T 6024
Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana, Telephone
No. 529-2411, Extension 2131, if they have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions.
Mark J . Gerry, Inc., d/b/a Dove Manufacturing Company, Re-
spondent and Los Angeles Dress and Sportswear Joint Board,
International Ladies ' Garment Workers ' Union, AFL-CIO,
Charging Union and Employees' Group Union , Party to the
Contract
Mark J. Gerry, Inc., d /b/a Dove Manufacturing Company, Em-
ployer and Los Angeles Dress & Sportswear Joint Board, a
Subordinate Body of the International Ladies' Garment Work-
ers' Union, AFL-CIO, and Local 986, affiliated with the Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, Joint Petitioners. Cases
Nos. 21-CA-5008-1, f1-CA-5008-2, 21-CA-5125, and 21-RC-7890.
.January 30, 1964
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND
ELECTION
On June 24, 1963, Trial Examiner David F. Doyle issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate
Report. The Trial Examiner further found that certain conduct
of the Respondent was grounds for setting aside the October 2, 1962,
election in the representation case. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
,exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
.145 NLRB No. 128.