Western Cottonoil Co.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsAug 29, 195195 N.L.R.B. 1433 (N.L.R.B. 1951) Copy Citation WESTERN COTTONOIL COMPANY 1433 after, prepare and cause to be served upon the parties a supplemental tally of the ballots. WESTERN COTTONOIL COMPANY and EL PASO CONSOLIDATED INDUSTRIAL UNION, LOCAL 896 OF INTERNATIONAL UNION OF MINE, MILL & SMELTER WORKERS . Cases Nos. 33-CA-113 and 33-RC-212. Au- gust 09,1951 Decision and Order On April 16, 1951, Trial Examiner Howard Myers 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 be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner further recommended that the Board sustain the objections to the election which was held on November 17, 1949, in Case No. 33-RC-212, and set aside that election. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep- tions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following additions and modifications. 1. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the Respondent inter- fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7, thereby violating Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. However, in making this finding, we rely solely on the following conduct, more fully described in the Intermediate Report : a. The speeches made by Vesey, the Respondent's district superin- tendent, insofar as those speeches 2 (1) contained promises that if the Union lost the election the employees would be given new recreation facilities, medical aid for their families, and an immediate wage 'in- crease, and (2) contained threats that if the Union was successful the Respondent would discontinue its policy of loaning money to its em- 3 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [ Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles]. 2 The statements by supervisory officials of the Respondent which we here find violative of the Act contain in themselves threats of reprisals or promises of benefit . As such it is unnecessary to, and we do not, adopt the Trial Examiner 's rationale as to the result that would be reached if it were to be found that the statements in question did not contain in their context any threats or promises of benefit. 95 NLRB No. 195. 1434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD , ployees, and the, employees would, as in the case of a nearby plant which had been recently unionized, lose their season-end bonus. b. The threat made by Shaw, the Respondent's mill superintendent, to employee Tarango, that the Respondent in retaliation to the union "could come back and make it hard for us." c. The interrogation of employee Gallardo by Shift Superintendent Ward in which Ward asked Gallardo how the latter was going to vote in the election.3 Vesey's statements regarding the wage increases took the form of outright promises that the wage increases would be granted as soon as the Union was out of the way, as well as statements that the in- creases had been held up because of the union activity. In its brief, the Respondent contends that in his several remarks on the subject of wage increases Vesey was merely seeking to explain to the employees that the wage increases'which had been effectuated in other of the Re- spondent's plants had not been instituted in the plant involved here because of the pendency of the Union's representation petition. We find no merit in this contention. True, on one occasion, the day before the election, the Respondent, in a letter to the employees, stated that "by law the company could not increase your pay as long as the union had a petition to represent you." But save for this one instance the Respondent's numerous statements that the wage increase had been held up because of the advent of t$e Union and would be granted as soon as the Union was "out of the picture" were unaccompanied by any reference to the Respondent's desire to avoid conduct which might be construed as interference with the election. We are convinced, on. the record as a whole, that if the Respondent were motivated by a proper purpose, it failed to make that-purpose clear, and, as the Board recently observed in a, closely related situation, "employees are not required to look behind the plain meaning of coercive words to find an unexpressed reason-for their-utterance." 4 2. We also find, as did the Trial Examiner, that because of the Re- spondent 's threats of reprisals, promise of benefits, and interrogation s Ward denied interrogating Gallardo ; the Trial Examiner credited Gallardo's testimony The- Respondent contends that this credibility finding should be reversed , asserting that Ward could not have interrogated Gallardo because the former spoke only English, and the latter spoke only Spanish . However, the record establishes that each: spoke some of the other 's language , and we are satisfied that the credibility finding of the Trial Examiner , who alone had an opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses, is not in conflict with a preponderance of the evidence and should be sustained. However, the record does not support the Trial Examiner's finding that Gallardo; 'in reply to Ward 's question , stated that he would vote against the Union. Under well established precedent , however, the Respondent 's interrogation of Gallardo violated the Act regardless of what Gallardo' s reply may have been . See Standard-Coosa-Thatcher Co., 85 NLRB 1358. 4 Telechron, Inc., 93 NLRB 474. Member Reynolds . is of the opinion that the instant case is distinguishable from . the Telechron case, in which he dissented , because unlike the employer in that case, the employer here made numerous promises of a wage increase conditioned upon defeat of the Union without any qualifying explanation. WESTERN COTTONOIL COMPANY 1435 which preceded the election of November 17, 1949, the results of that ,election did not express the employees' free choice and we shall there- fore set it aside. Order Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c) .of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Western Cotton- oil Company, El Paso, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Interrogating their employees concerning their union activities or sympathies, promising benefits if the Union is rejected, threatening reprisal if the Union is selected, or in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist a union, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of col- lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all Such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 2:_ Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its mill at El Paso, Texas, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, shall, after duly being,_signed by the. Respondent,. be, posted by the Respondent imme- diately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for sixty, (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where such notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, Fort Worth, Texas, in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by conduct other than that found to be violative in this Decision and Order, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 5In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be inserted before the words "A Decision and Order," the words "A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing." 1436 DECISIONS OF. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD - IT is FuRTxER ORDERED that the election held on November 17, 1949, among the employees of the Western Cottonoil Company, El Paso, Texas, in Case No. 33-RC-212 be, and it hereby is, set aside s Appendix NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union activities or sympathies, promise benefits if the union is rejected, threaten reprisals if a union . is selected or in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist EL PASO CONSOLIDATED INDUSTRIAL UNION, LOCAL 896 OF INTERNATIONAL UNION OF MINE, MILL & SMELTER WORK- ERS, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives. of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the. purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such activities except. to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership. in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the amended Act. All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain , from be- coming members of the above-named union or any other labor organi- zation except to the extent that - this right may be affected by: an agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the amended Act. WESTERN COTTONOIL COMPANY, Employer. By --------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) Dated -------------------- This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Intermediate Report and Recommended Order STATEMENT of THE CASE On August 10, 1950,' Western Cottonoil Company,' herein called the Respond- ent, and El Paso Consolidated Industrial Union , Local 896 of International ' When the Regional Director advises the Board that the circumstances permit a free choice of representatives , we shall direct that a new election be held among the Respondent 's employees. I Unless otherwise noted , all dates refer to 1950. 9 Upon the motion of the General Counsel, to which no objection was made, the pleadings and all other formal papers were amended to show the correct name of the Respondent as it appears above. WESTERN COTTONOIL COMPANY 1437 Union of Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers, herein called the Union, entered into a consent-election agreement the purpose of which was to determine whether the employees of the Respondent, in a certain specified appropriate unit, desired to be represented by the Union for the purposes of collective bargaining. On November 17, an election was conducted among the said employees under the auspices of the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region (Fort Worth, Texas).. At the said election a majority of votes was cast against the Union! On November 22, the Union filed objections to the conduct of the election and on.'November 27, it filed amended objections. On January 3, 1951, the said Re- gional Director issued his report on-,objections to election, in which he recom- mended that the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, order and direct that a hearing be held upon the issues presented by the objections. No exceptions were filed to said report. On January IT, 1951, the Board issued its Order Directing Hearing on Objections. Upon a charge duly filed by the Union on December 5, the General Counsel of the Board, herein called the General Counsel, issued -a complaint, dated Feb- ruary 26, 1951, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in, and was engaging. in, unfair labor practices affecting commerce within. the meaning of Section 9 ,(a) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and the amended charge,"together with notice of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the Respondent and the Union. On February 26, 1951, the said- Regional Director issued an Order, dated. that day, directing that the complaint and the representation cases, being Cases Nos. 33-CA-113 and 33-RG212, be consolidated. Copies of the said Order were duly served upon the parties herein. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint in substance alleged that the Respondent, through certain named agents and officials thereof, by means of certain stated acts and conduct, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employee`s in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7. On March 5, 1951, the Respondent duly filed an answer admitting certain al- legations of the complaint but denying the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on March 20 and 21, 1951, at El Paso, Texas, before the undersigned, Howard Myers, the duly designated Trial Exam- iner. The General Counsel and the Respondent were represented by counsel and the Union by an official thereof. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues was afforded all parties. At the conclusion of the taking of evidence, the General Counsel's motion to conform the complaint to the proof was granted without objection. Counsel for the Respondent then moved to conform. the answer to the proof. The motion was granted without objection. Respondent 's counsel then moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of proof. Decision thereon was ;reserved. The motion is hereby denied. The parties waived oral argument. They were then advised that they might file briefs and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law with the undersigned on or before March 31, 19514 A brief- has been received from the Respondent which has been carefully considered by the undersigned. Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned makes the following : 8 Of the 62 valid votes cast, 29 . were for the Union, 33 were against, and 2 were challenged. 4 At the request of the Respondent 's counsel , the time was extended to April 9, 1951. 1438 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Western Cottonoil Company, a Delaware corporation, has its principal offices in Abilene, Texas. The Respondent owns and operates mills and refineries in the States of Texas sand New Mexico. At its El Paso, Texas, mill, the employees of which are the only ones involved in this proceeding, the Respondent is• en- gaged, and during all times material herein has been engaged, in the refining, sale, and distribution of cottonseed oil and related products. The Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business, annually purchases raw" materials valued in excess of $1,000,000, approximately 50. percent of which is received at its Texas mills from points located outside the State of Texas, and these mills annually sell finished products valued in excess of $1,000,000, more than 50 per- cent of which is sold and delivered to points outside the State of Texas. The Respondent concedes, and the undersigned finds, that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED El Paso Consolidated Industrial Union, Local 896 of International Union of Mine, Mill & Smelter 'Porkers is a labor organization admitting to' member- ship employees of the Respondent. _ III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Interference, restraint, and coercion; the disputed election A. The pertinent facts As related above, the' Board conducted a secret-ballot election among the Re= spondent's employees in a certain appropriate unit on November 17. In, its campaign to defeat the Union at the polls, the Respondent held three separate meetings of its employees on November 11, and two separate meetings on Novem- ber 16. At each of these meetings, Frank C. Vesey, Respondent's district super- intendent. was the Respondent's spokesman.' • Regarding Vesey's remarks at the first meeting, employee Rafael Tarango -testified that Vesey, speaking sometimes in English and sometimes in Spanish, 'opened the meeting by stating that during all the time he had been with the Respondent' he was able to "get along" very favorably with the employees be- cause he liked and enjoyed working with the Spanish-speaking persons in the 'Respondent's employ ; ° that he was surprised the employees had sought ,the Union's aid to do-their bargaining, especially since they well knew- that they 'could settle their grievances satisfactorily by taking the matters up -with him 'directly; that as soon as the mill's new addition, which was then under con- struction, was ready for occupancy, the Respondent would permit the employees 'to use the third floor of the present building as a recreation hall so the employees would have a-place to gather and "have a good time after working hours" ; that he also said, "Friends, I want you to tell me [in] your own words how you feel about the Company, why you [want] to bring somebody over here to represent Each of the three shifts. was. addressed. separately. on November 11. - On November . 16,_.- one shift was addressed separately and the employees of the other two shifts were addressed jointly. ' 6 Vesey, prior to becoming district superintendent in 1948, had been superintendent of the El Paso mill, except for the period be was abroad on business for the Respondent or for the previous owner of the mill, for approximately 18 years. 7 Most of the employees at the El Paso mill are Mexicans and speak only Spanish. WESTERN COTTONOIL COMPANY 1439 you.' Now is the time for you fellows to express yourselves the way you want" ; that after he had repeatedly stated, "Now is the time for you to say whatever you want to say," an employee,'' asked, "Well; how about our pay? We are the lowest" ; ° that in response to that inquiry he said "it was hard to give [the; employees] a raise just like that," adding, to quote Tarango, "he was going to do all . .. in his power to" get the employees a raise ; that he then said it was the employees'."fault [that they had not been given a raise before], because [they] were trying. to bring in a union" ; that he-then said the employees of the El Paso mill had not been given raises af'the time the employees of the other plants of the Respondent had received their increases because of their actions in at- tempting to bring the Union into the mill; that Guerrero then asked "If the Union don't come" into the.plant would the Respondent grant the employees the 5-cent raise retroactive to the time of the granting of the increase to the employees in other plants ; that he replied, "Well, that's something I [cannot] answer right now, but I am going to call Abilene," and try to get it for you fel- lows"; and that he conditioned the retroactivity of the wage increase to July 31, upon the employees' repudiating the Union. Regarding Vesey's remarks at a meeting held on November 16, Tarango testified that Vesey advised the employees to vote against the Union at the forthcoming election; that Vesey called the employees' attention to the fact that the Union had been designated the collective bargaining representative of the employees at a nearby plant and the employees thereof lost certain privileges and advan- tages, including the loss of their usual season-end bonus, after the Union became their representative; and that Vesey intimated that the Respondent's employees might find themselves in the same plight if the Union won the election. Employee Juan Villegas testified that he attended a meeting of the third shift employees which was held in Vesey's office on the day before the Board election ; that thereat Vesey informed the employees that if the Union lost the election, the Respondent would grant the employees of the El Paso mill the same increase it had given to the employees of its other plant and make the increase retroactive to July 31; that Vesey said that the Respondent, in the future, would, to quote Villegas, "offer us medical and doctors for ourselves and the family in case we were ill, and that we [would] have a hall upstairs where we [could] hold our parties . "; and that Vesey told the assembled employees that they did not need a union in order to obtain wage increases. Villegas further testified that in the afternoon of November 16, he attended a meeting of the second and third shift employees at which Vesey stated, to again, quote, Villegas, "it was best [for] all of us to'vote `No' [at the election], that we could have [another] election after a year," and during the interval the employees could affiliate themselves with a more desirable union. Employee.Porfirio Villalobas testified that he attended a meeting on, Novem- ber 11, which was addressed by Vesey ; that Vesey stated, after informing the employees that he saw no need for a union in the mill, that if the Union was successful in the forthcoming election, the Respondent would cease its practice of loaning money to the employees ; that Vesey also stated that if the Union lost the election the 5 cents per hour wage increase would be put into effect "automatically" and immediately, adding that he could not promise to make it retroactive to July 31, but he would ascertain from the Respondent's head office if he could' do so; and that Vesey further stated that as soon as the new addition s Salvador Guerrero. O Evidently Guerrero was referring to the 5 cents per hour wage increases given on July 31 to the employees at each of the Respondent's eight or nine other plants. 10 The Respondent 's head office. 1440 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to the mill was completed the employees. would be provided with a recreation room. Regarding Vesey's remarks at a meeting held on November 16," Guerrero testi- fled, in part, as follows : When I got there, he [Vesey] was telling all the employees that he actually didn't want the Union and that there was no need for us to pay somebody to [represent] us, or to. talk for us, when we could all go to him and ask him for a raise, or if we had any problems, that we could go to him and that he would gladly help us, ... he said that we already had our raise coming, but since this business of the Union was in, that he cancelled that, that it was cancelled, that that raise was cancelled, and that they were going to wait until they find out if the Union was going to come in or it was going to stay out, something like that. Then I turned right around and ... I told Mr. Vesey, "I am neutral, but I am not against the Company and I am not against the Union, but will you guarantee that they will give us our money since the day of the other [mills] got their raise", and he turned around and said he would do all in his power to get that money which was coming to us since the day the raise in the other mills. he said he was going to make a call [to the Respondent's head office] the next day in the morning and find out if they would grant that money which was coming to us. Employee Santiago C. Gallardo testified that at a meeting of employees held on November 16," Vesey stated that the employees could "better" themselves without a union ; that the Respondent would supply medical aid whenever the employees or their families needed it ; and that as soon as "the Union was out of the way" the El Paso employees would receive the raise which had been given to the employees of the other mills. While not specifically denying the statements attributed to him by Tarango, Villegas, Villalobas, Gallardo, and Guerrero, Vesey testified that he made no statement in any of his speeches or to any employee which properly could be construed as a promise of benefit if the Union was defeated at the polls on November 17, nor did he make any threat of loss of any benefit or privilege if the Union won the election. He admitted, however, that in his speeches he advised the employees to vote against the Union ; that he told the employees that the wage increase was withheld from the El Paso mill employees because of the pending representation petition of the Union ; that the purpose of holding the three separate meetings on November 11 was to ascertain "why the boys felt like they needed a union, and to really draw them out, feel them out . . ." Vesey. further testified that in response to Guerrero's inquiry about not paying the El Paso employees the wage increase which had been given to the employees of the other mills he told the employees, in substance, the following : I would do all in my power to get them this raise and that I felt sure that once the entanglements the union entanglements, were free, that they would get their raise, and I did not know until after the election was held whether or not the men were actually eligible to a retroactive pay. It was 33 Erroneously referred to in the stenographic transcript of the hearing as being held on November 15. .12 Erroneously referred, to in the stenographic transcript of the hearing as being held on November 15. WESTERN COTTONOIL COMPANY 1441 not in my power to even promise that . I did promise that I would do all in my power to help them. Tarango, Villegas, Villalobas, Gallardo, and Guerrero were honest and forthright witnesses and the undersigned was favorably impressed with the straightforward -manner. in which they testified. This fact, coupled with Vesey's admissions, as epitomized above, leads the undersigned to the inescapable conclusion, and the undersigned accordingly finds, that Vesey made the statements attributed to him by Tarango, Villegas, Villalobas, and Guerrero. This finding is buttressed by the admission of James M. Shaw, the superintendent of the El Paso mill, that he attended two Vesey meetings with "reference to the promises concerning wage increases." Several days. prior to the election, Shaw called Tarango into his office and, according to the latter's credible testimony," Shaw told him, among other things, that the employees were mistaken if they believed they were obtaining "protec- tion" by affiliating with the Union, for the Respondent, in retaliation, "could come back and make it hard for" the employees. On Novexpber 16, the day preceding the Board election, the Respondent ad- mittedly distributed to the employees a letter reading, in part, as follows : Your pay would be more now had this union left you alone, by law, the company could not increase your pay as long as the union had a petition to represent you. Your hours are better and you have overtime pay` that this company is not required to grant. The union did not get short hours' and overtime pay for their members at a recent strike at another oil mill: Use your good judgment and vote "no" against the union. This company will always be fair and grant you every advantage possible. Gallardo testified that on the day before the Board election, Shift Superintend- ent Jessie M. Ward handed him a ballot similar to those used at the election and then asked him how he was going to vote and that he replied that he in- tended to vote against the Union. Ward denied that he interrogated Gallardo, or any other employee, as to how he intended to vote. He also denied that he handed a sample ballot to Gallardo or to any other employee. The undersigned was favorably impressed with the manner in which Gallardo testified and with his demeanor while on the witness stand. On the other hand, Ward did not so impress the undersigned. Under the circumstances, the undersigned credits Gallardo's testimony and finds that Ward did interrogate Gallardo as to how he intended to vote. B. Concluding findings In his ' brief Respondent 's counsel contended , in effect , that even if it be found that Vesey , Shaw, and Ward made the statements attributed to each of them by the General Counsel 's witnesses , their statements were "well within the latitude of free speech " as defined by Section 8 (c) of the Act because the state- ments contained no threats of reprisal or promise of benefit . With this con- tention the undersigned is unable to concur. Insofar as presently relevant , that section provides that "The expressing of any views , arguments, or opinion . . shall not . . . be evidence of an unfair labor practice .. '. if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force.or 19 Regarding this meeting, Shaw testified that "the essentials of the talk were to find out from Tarango what he and.'the other boys wanted frofn the Company that we weren't doing, and the major part .of the. discussion dealt with that ; and as to the details, that would be hard to recall." 1442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD promise of benefit." The legislative history of the Act in silhouette against the contemporary background clearly indicates that the objective of Section 8 (c) was to preclude an inference of unfair conduct from an,unconnected statement of attitude alone. It was not designed to preclude, as here, consideration of connected, immediately relevant utterances. -Viewed in this light, by the statements of Vesey and Ward, as 'summarized above, the Respondent engaged in acts violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. By Shaw's veiled threat that if the Union organized the employees, the Respondent would make things- "hard" for the employees, the Respondent vio-. ` lated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. Assuming, arguendo, that Vesey's,- Shaw's, and Ward's statements did not in themselves contain any threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit, that. fact' standing alone, would not bring the statements within the purview of Section 8 (c) for, as the legislative history of the Act shows, the Congress did not intend that the threats and promises which remove expressions of views and opinions from the protection of that section must necessarily appear in the context of such statement.. It was not, moreover, the intention of the Congress to preclude a consideration of threats or promises of benefit where, as here, they - are implicitly and inextricably a part of the conduct in question" Upon the basis of the above findings, and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned finds that the Respondent interfered with the conduct of the election of November 17, 1950, thereby depriving the employees of the freedom of choice of representatives contemplated by the Act. Accordingly, the under- signed recommends that the said election be set aside and vacated. 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 such of them as has been found to be unfair labor practices, tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. _ V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, the undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. The scope of the Respondent's illegal conduct discloses a purpose to defeat self-organization among its employees. It sought to coerce them in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in the Act. Such conduct, which is specifically violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, reflects a determination generally to interfere with, restrain, and coerce its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain col- lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-, certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual -aid or protection, and presents- a ready and effective.means of destroying self- organization among its employees. Because of the Respondent's unlawful con- duct and since there appears to be an underlying attitude of opposition on the part of the Respondent to the purposes of the Act to protect the rights of em- " See N. L. R. B. v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co., 1797. 2d .323 (C. C. 8.).; Telechron, Inc., 93 NLRB 474. HALLAM & BOGGS TRUCK AND IMPLEMENT CO. 1443 ployees generally," the undersigned is convinced that if the Respondent is not restrained from committing such conduct, the danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from the Respondent's conduct in the past, and the policies of the Act will be defeated. In order, therefore, to make effective. the interdependent guarantees of Section 7 of the Act, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and thereby minimize industrial strife which- burdens. and obstructs commerce, and 'thus effectuate the policies 'of the Act, the under- signed will recommend that theRespondentcease and desist from in any.. manner. infringing upon the rights guai'aiiteed in Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing, findings of fact, and upon the entire record- in the case, the undersigned makes the following : ConcLusIONs OF LAW 1. El Paso Consolidated Industrial Union, Local 896 of International Union: of Mine, Mill & .Smelter workers is.a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise. of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged, in, and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section. 8 (a) (1) of the Act. - 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the, meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.] /" See May Department Stores Company, etc. v. N. L. R. B., 326 U. S. 376. HALLAM & BOGGS TRUCK AND IMPLEMENT COMPANY and INTERNA- TIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS , LOCAL No. 9, AFL, PETI- TIONER. Case No. 30-CA-175. August 29,1951 Decision and Order On June 13, 1951, Trial Examiner. Maurice M. Miller issued his Intermediate 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 copy of the, Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Board 1 has considered the stipulation entered into by the par-. ties, the Intermediate, Report, the Respondent's exceptions and brief,, and the entire record in the case,' and hereby adopts the findings, con 2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its. powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and-'Styles]. 2 The parties waived a hearing, and stipulated that the record should consist of the formal papers in this proceeding, the dealer sales-and-service 'agreements between the. Respondent and International Harvester Company, and the record in Hallam & Boyg& Truck and Implement Company, 92 NLRB 1339. 95 NLRB No. 131. 961974-52-vol. 95-92 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation