Commerical Body & Tank Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 23, 1977

229 N.L.R.B. 876 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Commercial Body & Tank Corp. and Local 810,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America.
Cases 29-CA-4661 and 29-RC-2885'
May 23, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND MURPHY
On December 30, 1976, Administrative Law Judge
Russell M. King, Jr., issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
2 and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Commercial
Body & Tank Corporation, Corona, New York, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order.
'Case 29-RC 2885 was consolidated with this case for hearing on
objections to the election pursuant to Agreement for Consent Election. The
Administrative Law Judge severed the said representation case and
remanded it to the Regional Director of Region 29 for appropriate
disposition.
Mechanics Local 447, District 15 of the International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, is the Intervenor in the
proceeding.
2 The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect, Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RUSSELL M. KING, JR., Administrative Law Judge: These
consolidated cases were heard by me in Brooklyn, New
York, on June 29 and 30, 1976. The charge in Case 29-CA-
4661 was filed on October 29, 1975,' by Local 810,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America (hereinafter called
229 NLRB No. 138
Local 810 or the Union), the competing union. On March
22, 1976, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board (hereinafter called the General Counsel
and the Board) issued a complaint against Commercial
Body & Tank Corp. (hereinafter called the Respondent or
Employer) alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of
the National Labor Relations Act, alleging that an officer
and supervisor of Respondent improperly interrogated
employees regarding their union sympathies and improper-
ly assisted or supported the incumbent union, Mechanics
Local 447, District 15 of the International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO 2 (hereinaf-
ter called Local 447 or the Intervenor). An additional
allegation was added to the complaint on motion by
counsel for the General Counsel after the hearing opened,
involving alleged threats during the first day of the hearing
to one of General Counsel's witnesses for appearing and
testifying in the case. 3
In Case 29-RC-2885, an agreement for consent election
was entered into by the Employer and both Unions on July
23. The agreement was approved by the Regional Director
for Region 29 on July 28, and a Board-conducted election
was held on August 7. The election resulted in 7 votes for
each union with 10 challenged ballots.
4 On August 11,
Local 810 filed its objections to conduct affecting results of
election and the Regional Director's Report on Objections
was issued May 7, 1976, wherein four out of eight specific
objections were overruled, to which no appeal was taken.
The Regional Director concluded that the remaining four
objections in Case 29-RC-2885 and the allegations
contained in the complaint in Case 29-CA-4661 contained
substantially identical issues and thus consolidated the
cases for the hearing. 5
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, 6 and after due consideration of
the brief filed by the Respondent, I make the following:
All dates hereafter are in 1975 unless otherwise expressed.
2 Robert M. Stone, Esq., was present initially for Local 447 when the
hearing opened on June 29, 1976, at 10 a.m. Mr. Stone indicated that the
matter had been handled by Mr. Engelhard who could not be present until
12 noon due to another court appearance. Mr. Stone thus requested that the
case be "put over" until 12 noon, which request was denied. Mr. Stone
departed the hearing room before the lunch recess and was shortly
thereafter replaced by a Mr. "Braverman." The hearing was recessed for
lunch at 1:50 p.m. and reconvened at 2:30 p.m., at which time Everett
Lewis, Esq., appeared for Local 447 and indicated that Mr. Engelhard was
still involved in another court. Mr. Lewis' request to postpone the hearing
until the following morning was granted except for one witness and he
remained (as he stated) "as an observer" until the hearing recessed that day.
Mr. Engelhard did appear the second day (June 30, 1976) and remained and
participated throughout the day until the hearing was closed. Both witnesses
who gave testimony the first day were recalled and appeared the second day
for cross-examination by Mr. Engelhard, who indicated that he did have the
benefit of "notes that were taken yesterday and [his I conversation[s] with
[his I partners ....
3 The additional allegation was added over the objections of counsel for
the Respondent and counsel for the Intervenor (Local 447).
' A determination of the challenged ballots is being held in abeyance
pending final disposition of the objections by the Regional Director in Case
29-RC-2885.
5 The Respondent also requested and agreed to the consolidation.
6 The facts found herein are based on the record as a whole and on my
876
COMMERCIAL BODY & TANK CORP.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent is a New York corporation and
maintains a facility in Corona, New York (county of
Queens, in the city of New York), where it is engaged in the
service and repair of refuse trucks. During the 12-month
period prior to the issuance of the complaint, the
Respondent, in the conduct of its business, purchased and
received parts, tires, tools, and other goods and materials at
its Corona facility valued in excess of $50,000, and which
goods and materials were transported and delivered to said
facility in interstate commerce directly from States of the
United States other than the State of New York. I find, as
alleged and admitted herein, that the Respondent is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act.
I further find, as alleged and admitted herein, that Local
810 and Local 447 are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and Specific Allegations
The unit involved at Respondent's Corona garage facility
contains approximately 25 employees, which were repre-
sented by Local 447. In late 1974 several employees
contacted Local 810 and, on January 16, some six to eight
employees went out on strike on behalf of Local 810. The
strike continued until July 28, during which time daily
picketing was conducted with Local 810 signs. Respon-
dent's operations also continued without closing during
this period. Except for the allegation added to the
complaint at the hearing, all the alleged violations occurred
after the strike ended on July 28 and before the election on
August 7, and all involve Respondent's secretary-treasurer,
Rudy Mangino. Paragraph 8(a) of the complaint alleges
improper interrogation as to how employees were going to
vote and paragraph 9 of the complaint alleges improper
warning to employees to refrain from supporting Local
810, and thus giving improper assistance and support to the
incumbent union, Local 447. Paragraph 8(b) of the
complaint contains the newer and additional violation and
alleges that Respondent's secretary-treasurer, Mangino,
during the hearing of the case and at the Board's Region 29
Office, improperly threatened to report an employee-
witness to the Immigration and Naturalization Service
because of his attendance at the hearing. The events
obervation of the witnesses. The credibility resolutions herein have been
derived from a review of the entire testimonial record and exhibits with due
regard for the logic of probability, the demeanor of the witnesses, and the
teaching of N.LR.B. v. Walton Manufacturing Company & Loganville Pants
Co., 369 U.S. 404. 408 (1962). As to those witnesses testifying in
contradiction to the findings herein, their testimony has been discredited,
either as having been in conflict with the testimony of credible witnesses or
because it was in and of itself incredible and unworthy of belief. All
testimony has been reviewed and weighed in the light of the entire record.
I Franklin's testimony varied as to the exact working of Mangino's
question and his (Franklin's) reply. He initially indicated Mangino asked
when he would "be able to get the job," to which Franklin replied as above
indicated. Later. Franklin related that Mangino asked "what time could he
involve three short conversations between Mangino and
three employees, all four of whom testified in this case.
B. Summary of the Evidence
Stanley Franklin, a welder, first came to work for the
Respondent in August 1969. He was a prime organizer for
Local 810 and during the strike he picketed 3 to 4 days a
week. According to Franklin, approximately 2 or 3 days
before the election of August 7, the Respondent's secre-
tary-treasurer, Rudy Mangino, approached him, in the
presence of fellow employee Maurice Silvera, and asked
him when he would finish the job he was working on. 7
Franklin indicated he replied, "Your guess is as good as
mine," to which Mangino replied, "I don't know, boys, I
don't know how long you are staying here if 810 doesn't get
in." Franklin added that Mangino also "called us slaves." 8
After Mangino left, Franklin remarked to employee Silvera
that "this man is getting very nasty and we should be
careful."
Employee Maurice Silvera was also a welder and began
his employment with the Respondent in late 1970. He
supported Local 810 with employee Franklin and, while
out on strike, he also picketed. According to Silvera, the
conversation several days prior to the election between
Franklin and Secretary-Treasurer Mangino was a "nasty
exchange" and went as follows: 9
Mangino: He [Mangino] said will I be able to get
this job today.
Franklin: I don't know. .... if you want the job
today you will have to get one of your slaves to do it.
Mangino: [Y]ou are my slaves, I pay you on
Friday. .... I cannot guarantee how long you people
will be working here if Local 810 does not get into this
place.
Silvera related that his employment with the Respondent
ended in May 1976 when an individual from the Immigra-
tion Department approached him at work and asked him
for his identification papers. The following day, he phoned
Mangino and explained that the Immigration Department
was "giving [him] a hard time" and indicating that he
thought it best that he remain away from work to take care
of the matter. Silvera also testified that while waiting
outside the hearing room to be called to testify,10 Mangino
approached him and said "[Y]ou are in the wrong place,
Maurice. What happens if the Immigration man should
come inside here now." According to Silvera, the immigra-
tion matter had been taken care of but he (Silvera) did not
know whether or not Mangino knew this at the time.
get [the Ijob or if it would be possible to get the job today," followed by the
same reply as above. On August 8., Franklin signed an unswom Board
investigative statement which was introduced into evidence. This statement
indicates Mangino asked, "Do you think I could get that truck for the
weekend?" When confronted with the statement, Franklin testified that he
was not "positive" that Mangino said "weekend" or "today," but that he
"would go for [weekend r' after seeing the statement.
8 Franklin's testimony was equivocal here also. At first, he related that "I
think he called us slaves.... I don't know.... I believe he called us
slaves... something like that."
9 On cross-examination. Silvera's rendition of the exact dialogue was
slightly different but only in minor and insignificant respects.
10 All four witnesses in this case were sequestered.
877
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Silvera further related that in the evening after the first day
of his testimony he received a phone call from someone
who "sounded" like Mangino and who stated, "Tomorrow
is Immigration Day," and hung up.
Employee Francesco Jacques, also a welder, had worked
for the Respondent from early 1971 until August 7?12 He
was also a supporter of Local 810, went out on strike, and
picketed. According to Jacques, seven employees initially
went out on strike and "some" later went back to work.'3
Six or seven employees had orginally remained and did not
strike and the Respondent's operation continued through-
out the strike. Jacques testified that after the strike ended
Mangino, on two occasions, came to him "maybe just
joking telling [him] what union [he was] going to vote for."
Jacques replied, "I will see." 14 When asked what he meant
by "joking," Jacques indicated that "While [Mangino] was
saying that he was smiling, like a joke."
Rudolfo Mangino testified that, as the Respondent's
secretary-treasurer, he would check on each of the
employees and their work once or twice a day. He denied
ever talking to any employee after the strike about Local
810, how an employee was going to vote, or about the
election "at all." Mangino also denied calling Silvera the
evening of the first day of the hearing (June 29, 1976) but
admitted the subject of immigration did come up outside
the hearing room with Silvera. According to Mangino, he
was familiar with the fact that Silvera had immigration
problems during and after his employment and had talked
to the immigration people twice about the matter after
Silvera left work. Upon seeing Silvera outside the hearing
room, Mangino testified that he said, "I am surprised to see
you here, in a government building. .... [t]he Immigration
people are looking for you." Silvera's reply, according to
Mangino, was "I am all squared away," and nothing
further was said. Mangino indicated that it "never" entered
his mind that Silvera was present outside the hearing room
to testify in the case and claimed that he had tried to help
Silvera in his immigration problems. Mangino's rendition
of his conversation with Franklin (in Silvera's presence)
began when he "asked when the job was going to be done,"
to which Franklin and Silvera responded "they did not
know." Mangino indicated that he replied, "It should have
been done an hour ago," to which Franklin replied, "What
do you think I am, a slave?" Mangino indicated he then
replied, "No.... But while you are working for me 8
hours I am looking to get some of my labor from you."
Nothing else was said according to Mangino.
II The hearing commenced on June 29, 1976, and ended the following
day. Both Silvera and Franklin testified on June 29 and were recalled and
examined further on June 30.
12 August 7 was the date of the election. The charge in this case, filed
October 29, alleges the unlawful discharge of Jacques in violation of Sec.
8(a)(3) of the Act. The complaint, issued March 22, 1976, contains no such
allegation.
1a Mangino testified that approximately eight employees returned after
the strike.
14 Although the actual verbiage from the record does not indicate
Mangino's remarks to be in the form of a question, the demeanor of Jacques
and his reply to Mangino lead me to conclude that Mangino's remarks were
in the nature of an inquiry or question, as opposed to a directive.
is Jacques was no longer employed by Respondent when he testified in
this case. In appraising his credibility, I have taken into account that fact
C. Evaluation of Law and Evidence and Initial
Conclusions of Law
The first alleged violation concerns improper interroga-
tion as to how employees were going to vote in the election.
This allegation is supported only and solely by the
testimony of ex-employee Jacques who related that on two
occasions after the strike, Mangino asked him, "maybe just
jokingly" and while "smiling," how he was going to vote.
Jacques replied, "I will see." Mangino denied making any
such inquiry of any employee. I credit the testimony of
Jacques in this case over that of Mangino,' s and thus find
and conclude that Mangino's questions put to Jacques
regarding his vote were, in the setting and climate in this
case, improper and constituted unlawful interrogation in
violation of the Act. Jacques was a known supporter of
Local 810, and even presuming Mangino's personal and
prior conclusion that Jacques would vote for Local 810
does not make the inquiries so meaningless and insignifi-
cant as to lift them from the improper category, notwith-
standing Mangino's joking manner. Mangino was an
officer of the Respondent and supervised and monitored
the employees on a daily basis. The election was but days
away and Local 810 had been responsible for a 6-month
strike which had ended only days earlier. Further, the
Respondent, I find, favored the incumbent union, Local
447.16 Having concluded that the inquiries were in fact
made, and considering the total circumstances and atmo-
sphere in which made, I conclude that Mangino's inquiries
of Jacques as to how he was going to vote were coercive
and in violation of employee rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, and thus a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
The second alleged violation in the complaint concerns
Mangino's conversation with Franklin, in the presence of
Silvera, and regarding the completion of a job they were
working on. According to Franklin, 2 or 3 days before the
election Mangino approached him and Silvera and in-
quired as to when they would finish thejob.'7 According to
Franklin, he replied, "Your guess is as good as mine."
However, according to Silvera, Franklin's reply was "I
don't know ... if you want the job today you will have to
get one of your slaves to do it." Franklin, however, would
have the word "slave" interjected by Mangino, but
Mangino would have it interjected by Franklin (as did
Silvera). Silvera also indicated that Mangino took up and
used the word when he responded "[Y]ou are my slave, I
pay you on Friday." The most significant and key language
followed when, according to both Franklin and Silvera,
and thus his consequent lack of interest in this case because of his
disassociation with the Respondent. I was generally impressed with Jacques'
testimonial demeanor. For the most part, his answers were straightforward
but preceded, at appropriate times, with what I concluded were concentrat-
ed, reflective, and silent moments spent to assure a proper and truthful
answer. Mangino's credibility, however, was more than doubtful and will be
dealt with later herein.
'1 The basis for this finding will be discussed later herein.
i7 Franklin's testimony as to the exact wording of the question was
equivocal, ranging from when the job would be ready, to would the job be
ready today, and ending with would it be ready by the weekend. Mangino's
version was simply that he asked when the job would be ready. Silvera
indicated that Mangino asked if the job would be ready "today." I do not
consider these variances as significant in this case.
878
COMMERCIAL BODY & TANK CORP.
Mangino questioned their longevity with Respondent if
Local 810 did not win the election.' 8 Mangino denied any
such statement or reference to Local 810. I credit the
testimony of Franklin and Silvera here over that of
Mangino,'9 and thus find that in fact Mangino did make
the remark involving essentially the job security of
Franklin and Silvera (and, in effect, other Local 810
supporters) in the event Local 810 lost the election. Both
Franklin and Silvera were outward supporters of Local 810
and had been out on strike and picketed. Mangino, I find
without question, knew who the outward supporters of
Local 810 were, having been at Respondent's plant on a
daily basis and thus having observed the pickets of Local
810 over a 6-month period. There were approximately 25
unit of employees involved, 6 to 8 of which, according to
Mangino's own testimony, supported the Local 810 strike.
I find that Mangino, as secretary-treasurer of Respondent,
and through his inquiries put to Jacques and comments to
Franklin and Silvera, had and outwardly displayed, to
Respondent's employees, an interest in a desired outcome
of the election. I further find that the effect of Mangino's
remarks to Franklin and Silvera in this case was to give
support to the incumbent Local 447 and to threaten
employees with discharge if they supported Local 810 by
vote or membership, or otherwise, and was thus violative of
Section 8(a)(l) and (2) of the Act.
The third and final allegation in the complaint concerns
Mangino's remarks to Silvera outside the hearing room and
regarding Silvera's immigration problems. According to
Silvera, Mangino approached him and said, "[Ylou are in
the wrong place.... What happens if the immigration
man should come inside here now." Mangino essentially
admitted the remarks, testifying that he stated, "I am
surprised to see you in here, in a government building ...
The immigration people are looking for you." Mangino
also admittedly knew of Silvera's problems and justified his
remarks as being an attempt to help (or, in effect, protect)
Silvera. 20 As indicated earlier, I do not credit the
significant portions of Mangino's testimony in this case.2 ' I
find and conclude here that Mangino's remarks to Silvera
were in fact calculated to induce or influence Silvera either
i' Both Franklin's and Silvera's versions were similar. Franklin testified
that Mangino stated, "I don't know, boys, I don't know how long you are
staying here if 810 doesn't get in." Silvera remembered the statement as "I
cannot guarantee how long you people will be working here if Local 810
does not get into this place."
i9 As noted earlier, Franklin's testimony was equivocal in places. I note
however that, of the three employee witnesses in this case. only Franklin was
employed by the Respondent at the time of the hearing. Franklin appeared
under subpena by the Board and did appear nervous and uneasy during his
testimony. Initially, his demeanor conveyed the impression that he was
fighting the truth, but in the end he won the battle. He continued
throughout being as unspecific and uncertain as possible but, I believe,
faced Mangino's Local 810 statement head on. Silvera, whose testimony I
credit completely in this case, essentially corroborated Franklin's testimony.
Silvera's position in this case was similar to that of Jacques, who both were
no longer employed by the Respondent. Silvera had left in May 1976
because of the immigration matter. Silvera. as Jacques, was straightforward
in his testimony and demeanor, and on cross-examination he was virtually
unshakable.
20 In the discussions and argument prior to granting the amendment to
the complaint, counsel for the General Counsel urged that Silvera had been
threatened and intimidated, and expressed fear that he would not remain to
testify, further requesting that Silvera be called to testify immediately and
out of turn. Silvera. nonetheless, appeared calm and collected during his
testimony and in fact, although late, appeared the following day for further
not to testify in the case or to give false testimony. The
remark, I further find, constituted a threat and in the
circumstances of this case was thus a violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record, I hereby make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Charging and Petitioning Union herein (Local
810) and the intervening union here (Local 447) are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. The Respondent, between the period from July 28 to
August 7, 1975, engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by interrogating an
employee concerning how he was going to vote in a future
Board-conducted election.
4. The Respondent, on or about August 4, 1975,
engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening two employees
with discharge if they supported or voted for the charging
and petitioning Union (Local 810) in a future Board-
conducted election.
5. The Respondent, on or about August 4, 1975,
engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of
Section 8(aX2) of the Act by discouraging membership in
and support of the charging and petitioning union (Local
810) and thereby supporting the intervening (incumbent)
union, Local 447.
6. The Respondent, on June 29, 1976, engaged in an
unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act by threatening to report a former employee and
witness for the General Counsel to the immigration
authorities if said witness testified or gave testimony
adverse to the Respondent's interests.
examination, maintaining throughout his testimony that the matter had
been straightened out or taken care of. Having previously credited Silvera's
entire testimony in this case, I am satisfied that the matter in fact was taken
care of and no longer posed any threat to Silvera himself It is also notable
that Silvera reappeared the second day of the heanng further notwithstand-
ing his receipt of a phone call the preceding evening wherein the caller, who
did not identify himself, stated, "Tomorrow is Immigration day." Silvera
indicated the voice sounded like Mangino but also testified that he only had
an "idea" of who it was and "did not recall the voice." From this testimony,
and even after considering Mangino's remarks to Silvera earlier in the day,
and further presuming and concluding that Mangino did not know or was
not convinced that the matter had been taken care of, I cannot and do not
find that Mangino was in fact the individual who called Silvera the evening
of June 29, 1976.
21 Mangino's testimonial remarks that he never and did not "at all"
mention or talk about Local 810 or the election, borders on the incredible,
especially in light of the flurry of union activity over many months and his
constant contact with all employees. His testimony thereafter reached the
absolutely incredible stage when he indicated that it never entered his mind
that Silvera was present outside the hearing room to give testimony in the
case. Mangino appeared uninterested and nonchalant, but his overall
demeanor, including his "who me" attitude portrayed in his abrupt denials
of any and all activities which could have been damaging to his company.
prompt me to discredit most of his testimony in this case
879
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
THE REMEDY
The recommended Order will contain the conventional
provisions in cases involving findings of interference,
restraint, and coercion, and contributing or giving improp-
er support to a labor organization, in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act. Thus it will require the
Respondent to cease and desist from the unfair labor
practices found herein and to post a notice to that effect.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 22
The Respondent, Commercial Body & Tank Corp.,
Corona, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating employees as to how they will vote in
any Board-conducted election.
(b) Threatening employees with discharge if they support
or vote for the charging and petitioning union (Local 810),
or any other labor organization, in any Board-conducted
election.
(c) Threatening to report employees to the immigration
service or any other governmental authority if they support
and give testimony at any Board-conducted hearing
involving any individual or labor organization and the
Respondent.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is
found will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at Respondent's place of business or garage in
Corona, New York, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 23 Copies of said notice on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 29, after being duly
signed by the Respondent, shall be posted immediately
upon receipt thereof, and shall be maintained by the
Respondent for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspi-
cuous places, including all places where notices to
22 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
23 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
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 Region 29, in
writing, and within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Case 29-RC-2885 be
severed and remanded to the Regional Director of Region
29 for appropriate disposition under the agreement for
consent election in conformance with the findings herein.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing in which we were found to have violated
certain provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, the
National Labor Relations Board ordered us to post this
notice.
The National Labor Relations Act gives all employees
these rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or help unions
To bargain collectively through a representa-
tive of their own choosing
To act together for collective bargaining or
other aid or protection
To refrain from any or all these things.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees as to how they
will vote in any Board-conducted election.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with discharge if
they support or vote for Local 810, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, or any other labor organiza-
tion, in any Board-conducted election.
WE WILL NOT threaten to report employees to the
immigration service or any other governmental authori-
ty if they support and give testimony at any Board-
conducted hearing involving any individual or labor
organization (or union) and Commercial Body & Tank
Corp.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with
employees or attempt to restrain or coerce employees in
the exercise of the above rights, guaranteed under
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
COMMERCIAL BODY &
TANK, CORP.
880