Davis Cabinet Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 15, 1964

150 N.L.R.B. 182 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. George Tarr, at all times material herein, has been and still is a business repre-
sentative of the Union and is an agent of the Union, within the meaning of Section
?(13) of the Act, acting on its behalf.
6. By forcing Boggs to enter into an individual contract, not negotiated for him
by his designated representative, the Association, the Union has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
8 (b) (1) (B ) of the Act.
7. By the conduct stated in paragraph 6, above, and by refusing to enter into or
to negotiate any contract which did not contain nonmandatory subjects of bargain-
ing, to wit, a subcontractor clause and a bond as security for the performance of the
agreement, the Union has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(b) (3) of the Act.
8. By insisting that Boggs accept a package contract on a take-it-or-leave-it basis,
the Union has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (3)
of the Act.
9. By picketing Boggs and by inducing or encouraging individuals employed by
Boggs to refuse, in the course of'their employment, to use, manufacture, process,
transport, or otherwise handle or'work on any goods, articles, materials, or com-
modities, or to perform any services, and by threatening, coercing, and restraining
Boggs, where, in each event, an object thereof was forcing Boggs to enter' into an
agreement which is prohibited by Section 8(e) and forcing Boggs to cease doing
business with any other subcontractor who had not signed'the Union's area agreement,
the Union has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (b) (4) (i), (ii) (A) and (B) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
Davis Cabinet Company and Middle Tennessee District Council
of Carpenters , United Brotherhood of-Carpenters and Joiners
of America, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 26-CA-1790 and 26-RC-2142.
December 15, 1964
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
. . SECOND ELECTION
On September 30, 1964, Trial Examiner William W. Kapell issued
his Decision in the above-entitled consolidated proceeding, finding
that Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices as
alleged in Case No. 26-CA-1790, and recommending that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth
in the attached -Decision. The Trial Examiner also found that
Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal of these alle-
gations. He further found that the objections to the election in
Case No. 26-RC-2142 should be sustained, and recommended that the
election be set aside. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions,
with a supporting brief, to the Trial Examiner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in
connection with these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman
McCulloch and Members Leedom and Jenkins].
150 NLRB No. 22.
DAVIS CABINET COMPANY 183
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
Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case,
and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings,2 conclusions, and
recommendations, as modified herein.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
the Respondent, Davis Cabinet Company, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interrogating its employees concerning their union activities,
sentiments, and desires, in a manner constituting interference,
restraint, or coercion within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the
Act.
(b) Threatening employees with economic reprisals because of
their union membership or activities.
(c) In any like, or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed it
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action :
(a) Post at its plant and offices at Nashville, Tennessee, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix A." 3 Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 26, shall, after
being signed by Respondent's representative, be posted by Respond-
1 After both the General Counsel and Respondent had closed their respective cases, the
hearing was reconvened , following the noon recess , for presentation of oral argument. At
the beginning of the afternoon session, General Counsel offered in evidence a copy of the
Union's demand for recognition of March 2, 1964, for the purpose of proving that at the
time Foreman Strickland began his seises of interrogations of employee Vinson, Respond-
ent was aware of the Union's assertion of majority status . The General Counsel conceded
that his failure to offer the letter during his case -in-chief was due to oversight. Respond-
ent objected on two grounds . that the document was irrelevant and immaterial , and that
to permit General Counsel to reopen his case would be prejudicial to Respondent. Argu-
ment by counsel indicates that the exhibit had been earlier discussed , off the record, at
the hearing and that it had been decided that the exhibit should be offered at some later
point in the proceeding . The Trial Examiner accepted the exhibit in evidence.
While the letter appears to have some relevance as corroboration for Vinson's testimony,
its probative value is slight . However, the document was introduced before the hearing
had been adjourned ; the Respondent had the opportunity to argue its admissibility, and
the Respondent made no request for additional time to submit evidence to rebut the impli-
cations of the letter . In these circumstances , we agree with the Trial Examiner that
Respondent was not prejudiced by the delayed introduction of the exhibit.
2 While his Decision does not expressly find that the interrogations of employees Gerlach
and Vinson by Foremen Ennis and Strickland constituted violations of Section 8(a) (1),
it is manifest that the Trial Examiner did so conclude . We agree with these conclusions.
3In the event that this Order is 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."
184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to its employees are customarily, posted. Rea
sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges
that the Respondent violated the Act by conduct other than that
found to be violative herein, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held on March 31, .1964,
in Case No. 26-RC-2142, be, and it hereby is, set aside, and that
said case be remanded to the Regional Director for Region 26 of
the Board to conduct a new election at such time as he deems that
circumstances permit the employees to exercise a free choice in the
selection of a bargaining representative.
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]
APPENDIX A
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 you that :
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their
union membership, sentiments, and desires, in a manner consti-
tuting interference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with economic reprisals
because of their union membership or activities.
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 Middle Tennessee
District Council of Carpenters, United Brotherhood of Carpen-
ters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, or 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.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from
becoming or remaining, members of the above-named, or any other,
labor organization.
DAVIS CABINET COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
DAVIS CABINET COMPANY 185
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, 746 Federal Office Building, 167 North Main Street, Memphis,
Tennessee, Telephone No. 534-3161, if they have any question con-
cerning this notice or compliance with. its provisions.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION AND REPORT ON OBJECTIONS
TO ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Case No 26-CA-1790, a proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor
.Relations Act, as amended , herein called the Act , was heard before Trial Examiner
William W. Kapell in Nashville, Tennessee , on July 8, 1964 , with all parties par-
ticipating , pursuant to,due notice on a complaint issued on May 22, 1964, by the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
on charges dated , April 6 and 17, 1964 ,1 filed by Middle Tennessee Council of Car-
penters. - United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, herein
called the Union , against Davis Cabinet Company, herein referred to as Respond-
ent, alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, by interrogating its employees,
creating an impression of surveillance , and making threats of economic loss and
,promises of economic benefits. Respondent in its answer denied the commission of
any unfair labor practices.
Consolidated for hearing with the aforesaid complaint were the Union 's objec-
tions Nos . I and II, to conduct affecting the results of an election held on March 31,
in, Case No. 26-RC-2142, in which the Union charged that Respondent interrogated
its employees concerning their union sympathies and how they would vote in the
election, and coerced and circuitously threatened employees with economic loss
through company disfavor if they supported and voted a union in the plant . Respond-
ent in its answer also denied that the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint
raised "material and substantial" issues, which , even if resolved in favor of the
Charging Party, could be used to set aside the election , because the alleged incidents
were too isolated and few in number to affect the results of the election.
Upon the entire record 2 in the case , and from my observation of the witnesses I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS
At all times material herein , Respondent , a Tennessee corporation with its prin-
cipal. place of business located at Nashville , Tennessee , where it is engaged in the
manufacture of furniture ,, manufactured , sold, and shipped finished products valued
i Dates are to the year 1964 throughout unless otherwise indicated
•J At the opening of the hearing , General Counsel moved to amend the complaint by
adding Ovel ( Orvil ) Gregory to the list of supervisors enumerated in paragraph 6, and
incidents of interrogation by Giegory on March I3 and 17 to paragraph 7 The motion
was granted . , Respondent then objected to'having any evidence relating to the amend-
ments considered In resolving the objections to election on the ground that the Board's
Order of June 8, adopting the Regional Director ' s report "closed and locked " the door on
the submission of further evidence to support the Union ' s objections to election, and it
would be prejudicial to Respondent to have any alleged conduct considered in the "R" case
which was ' not considered by the Regional Director in his report Ruling on the objection
was-.deferred pending the issuance of the within decision The objection is now overruled
Respondent apparently labors under the mistaken impression that General Counsel is
attempting to broaden the objections to election by conforming them to the complaint
Actually , the converse is true , The complaint was amended to conform it to objection
.No I, which alleges interrogation by Respondent and specifically names Gregory as one
of its supervisors who engaged in such conduct . Evidence involving Gregory 's interroga-
tioniis properly within the scope of the objections to election, and may be considered in
their resolution
186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in excess of $50,000, from its Nashville, Tennessee, plant to points directly outside
the State of Tennessee during the 12 months prior to the issuance of the complaint.
Respondent at all times material herein has been engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Charging Union is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
By letter 3 of March 2, the Union advised Respondent that it represented a majority
of its employees in an appropriate union for purposes of collective bargaining, and
requested a meeting to negotiate a collective-bargainmg agreement. On March 5,
the Union filed a petition (Case No. 26-RC-2142) with the Board for an election
among Respondent's production and maintenance employees at its Nashville,' Tennes-
see, plant. Thereafter, pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent elec-
tion entered into on March 23, an election was held on March 31 for 266 eligible
voters. The results of the election show that 158 ballots were cast against the Union,
94 for the Union, 3 ballots were void, and 6 ballots were challenged. During the
preelection campaign Respondent allegedly engaged in certain conduct which was
later made the basis of objections to election by the Union. In his report on objec-
tions to election, the Regional Director of Region 26 overruled objections Nos. III
through VIII, and recommended that a hearing be directed to resolve the issues
raised by the other objections, namely Nos. I and II, which he deemed material and
substantial and best resolved on the basis of record testimony, and further recom-
mended that the hearing be consolidated with the hearing to be held in Case No.
26-CA-1790, because the supporting incidents were the same in both cases. By
Order dated June 8, the Board adopted the Regional Director's recommendations as
contained in his report, no exceptions having been filed thereto, and ordered that a
hearing be held to resolve the issues raised by the Union's objections Nos. I and II,
which may be consolidated with the hearing scheduled in Case No. 26-CA-1790
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
1. The testimony of James C. Gerlach
All the testimony in the case was presented by the General Counsel. The Respond-
ent called no witnesses and rested upon completion of the General Counsel's case.
James Carl Gerlach, a molder operator in Respondent's machine department, tes-
tified that his foreman, Lloyd Ennis, approached him at his machine about 2 or 3
days prior to the election and the following colloquy took place: "He asked whether
I received a letter [General Counsel's Exhibit No. 2] 4 that Mr. Walters [vice presi-
dent of manufacturing] put out. I told him I had. He asked what I thought of the
letter and I said `I'm for the Union a hundred percent.' He said, `Well, you know it
costs money. It will cost you about $39 a year for Union dues.' I told him, `It takes
money to make money.' He said, `Well, if the Union did get in you might not be
making any more than you are now,' and he walked off." Respondent conceded that
the conversation took place as alleged.
3 General Counsel offered the letter in evidence after both he and Respondent had rested.
Respondent's objections to Its admission on the grounds that it would be prejudicial to
reopen the record, and that the letter was neither relevant nor material, were overruled.
In his brief, counsel for Respondent renewed his objections to its admission. After re-
considering the objections, I adhere to my initial ruling. The letter Is both relevant and
material to indicate that Respondent became aware of the Union's interest at the be-
ginning of March. Furthermore, it is the duty of the Examiner to inquire fully into the
facts as to whether Respondent has engaged in any unfair labor practice.
4 The letter gives a detailed r6sum6 in question and answer form of the rights and obli-
gations of employers and employees under the Act, and, inter alma, was made the basis of
objection No. IV to the election. The Regional Director in overruling this objection
found that the letter was "factual, temperate and relevant" and did not preclude em-
ployees from exercising a free choice on the question of whether or not they wished to be
represented by the Union.
DAVIS CABINET COMPANY 187
2. The testimony of Richard Jackson Miller
Richard Jackson Miller, employed as a lumberman for Respondent for the past 6
years, testified that on March 13,' Foreman Lee engaged him in a conversation in
which he was told that if he wanted to keep his job he better leave the Union alone.
Lee also told him that "Elmo 5 got you to sign a union card. I know you are a union
man." Miller denied he was a union man, but Lee persisted in repeating the same
accusation some five or six times until -Miller finally told Lee to leave him alone.
Three days later Foreman Gregory engaged Miller in conversation in which "He
talked about some people that joined the Union." When Miller protested that he
did not believe in any union, Gregory replied, "That's the way to talk. All the
union's good for is to take your money." Gregory also asked Miller whether he
would vote "Yes" or "No" at the election, told him to vote "No," and demonstrated
on a card how to vote "No." On cross-examination, Miller contradicted himself
several times as to whether his conversation with Gregory occurred prior to or after
the election. He also appeared confused as to why he did not relate his alleged
conversation with Gregory to the Board representative when interviewed.6 It was
obvious to the Examiner, and also conceded by Respondent, that, in addition to being
illiterate and very inarticulate, Miller's comprehension was rather limited. He was
unable to define the term "month" or to state the name of the current month. It
was equally patent that he was attempting to be as truthful as his mental limitations
permitted. Considering Miller's testimony in its entirety, I find that the confusion
over whether his conversation with Gregory occurred prior to or after the election
and his failure to relate that conversation in his interview with the Board represen-
tative stem from the fact that this conversation' actually took place after his interview
with the Board representative but prior to the election, and that the written statement
of his interview was prepared, read to, and acknowledged by him, after the election.
I also credit Miller's other testimony, which was neither confused nor contradictory
or refuted, to the effect that Foreman Lee warned him to leave the Union alone if he
wanted to keep his job, told him to vote "No" at the election and showed him how to
vote "No."
3. The testimony of Curly C. Vinson
Curly C. Vinson, a sprayman in the finishing department, appeared pursuant to a
subpena, and testified in a reluctant and hostile manner toward the General Counsel
that Luther Strickland, his foreman, spoke to him on three occasions about the
Union. On the first occasion, about a month before the election, Strickland called
him to his office and asked him whether he was for the Union. Vinson stated that he
was and when Strickland asked "Why," he replied that he was looking for more pay,
although he had no complaints about the working conditions. Strickland then
advised Vinson that he was a hundred percent against the Union, and that he thought
the Company would try its best to get all that the employees wanted without any
union . On the second occasion, about a week later, Vinson was again summoned to
Strickland's office where he was asked how the Union was coming along. Vinson
replied that it was picking up. Strickland then described some of the disadvantages
of having a union , such as a strike and loss of wages. He also. told Vinson that his
work had improved, and he would do his best to obtain a raise for him. On the
third occasion, about a week later , Strickland approached Vinson at his work sta-
tion and again related some of the disadvantages of a union, and asked what he
thought about it. Vinson replied that he was expecting and hoping to get a raise.
On cross-examination, Vinson admitted that Strickland had exerted no pressure
on him to leave the Union, and did not condition a pay raise on his union attitude.
When confronted with a prehearing affidavit which he had given to a Board represen-
tative, he disavowed that part, which, in effect, stated that he had been promised a
raise if the Union did not come in. He claimed that the Board agent had written
down a different version from that given to him, and that he had not read the state-
ment completely before signing it, assuming that it correctly stated what he had
related to the Board representative, and was unaware of the error until 2 nights
before when shown the statement by Board counsel. It also appears that Vinson
was an observer for the Union at the election.
Vinson's testimony concerning that part of his conversation with Strickland in
which he was questioned as to what he thought of the Union Sand how it was coming
along, was not challenged, and is credited. Respondent's denial that any promise of
5 Elmo Pemberton, a coworker of Miller.
6 His .prehearing statement to a Board representative contained no mention of this
alleged conversation.
188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
economic benefit (a pay raise ) was given to Vinson for the purpose of having him
withdraw from the Union, is based on his testimony at the hearing, which repudi-
ated his prehearing affidavit on that point. A significant factor to be considered in
evaluating the veracity of this phase of Vinson's testimony is the General Counsel's'
unexplained failure to call the Board representative, who took the preheafing state-'
ment, as a witness to testify, although he knew 2 nights prior to the hearing that
Vinson was going to repudiate that part of his statement. Vinson's demeanor in
testifying impressed the Trial Examiner as being straightforward, truthful, and-co
'
n-,
vincing, and his denial that he was promised a pay-raise if he left the Union' is
credited.
4. The testimony of Tommy S. Ledbetter
Tommy S. Ledbetter, a foreman in Respondent's shipping department, called as a
witness on behalf of the General Counsel, testified that he had approached seven or,
eight unidentified employees in the plant and asked whether they had received, the
letter of March 23 from Walters in the mail, and if they had any comment about
it. When specifically questioned as to his purpose"in asking the employees whether
they had received the letter, he replied, "Only if he had some comment he would•like,
to make about it or some question he needed to ask about it." Ledbetter also'stated
that he and other supervisors had asked Respondent's counsel whether.they "could-
question employees about the letter and were advised what they could say about the
Union. . I
Concluding Findings in Case No. 26-CA-1790
Interrogation of employees concerning union activities is not per se violative of
Section 8 (a) (1). However, persistent interrogation accompanied by coercion shows
a purpose to interfere with the rights of employees and is unlawful. , N.L.R.B. v.,
T. A. McGahey, et al., d/b/a Columbus Marble Works, 233,17-2d 406 (C.A. 5):
The test laid down in, the case of Blue Flash Express, Inc., 109 NLRB, 591, is
"whether under all the circumstances the interrogation reasonably tends to restrain
or interfere with the employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act."
Respondent contends that the interrogation in some cases had no effect on-an
employee or, in fact, caused to favor the Union. In determining whether particular
conduct violates Section 8(a) (1), the Board looks to the tendency of such conduct
rather than its actual effect in the given case. Interrogation by supervisory employees
as to union sympathies carries with it at least the aroma of coercion, especially when
coupled with the supervisors' expression of extreme distaste for unionism. Sweet-
water Rug Company, 148 NLRB 498. . 1 !
'
Measured by these standards the,persistent interrogation accompanied by Fore-
man Lee's threat to Miller's employment and Foreman Gregory's direction to Miller
as to how to vote was unlawful. The interrogations by Respondent's supervisors
either at the work station of the employee or in' their private offices were intended to
stimulate conversations which would reveal the union sentiments of the employees
and the strength of the Union, and were not accompanied by any explanation of their
purpose. Respondent adduced no evidence to establish that the interrogation had a
legitimate purpose or motive. The fact that several foremen were briefed by
Respondent's counsel as to how they could question the employees about the letter
and the Union indicates concerted action to obtain such information. In these cir-
cumstances the interrogation was coercive. `
Respondent argues that, inasmuch as the Board adopted the Regional Director's
recommendation to overrule objection No. IV, which included thei sending of
Walters' letter because it was "factual, temperate and relevant," and did not preclude
the employees from exercising a free choice on the question of whether or. not they
wished to be represented by the Union, it, therefore, follows that oral reference to
the letter by a supervisor in conversations with an employee cannot. be violative of
the Act. The letter, per se, may be innocuous and not violative of the "Act, but- it
was the purpose for which -the letter was used, namely to question' the employees
about the Union and their union sentiments, rather than its content, which violated
the Act. .
I conclude and find that the interrogation here was conducted under such circum-
stances as to disclose it to be a kind which reasonably may be expected to interfere
with and coerce employees in the free exercise of their statutory rights, in violation
of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. • "
I also find that Foreman Lee's warning to Miller to leave the Union -alone-if he
wanted to keep his job, constituted coercion and threat of economic loss, in violation
of Section 8 (a) (I) of the Act. I find, however, that Lee's statement to Miller that
.J. r 1 1 .
DAVIS CABINET COMPANY 189
he had been,addised by Elmo that Miller was a•union man is insufficient to establish
that Respondent created the impression of surveillance of his union activities within
the meaning of the Act, because it does not appear that he (Lee) sought the informa-
tion. Accordingly , it is recommended that the allegation in the complaint setting
forth that Respondent created the impression of surveillance of the union activities of
its employees be dismissed.
Foreman Gregory 's questioning of Miller as to how he was going to vote, his
admonition to vote "No ," and his demonstration of how to vote "No," also consti-
tuted a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. See Clark Printing Company, Inc.,
146 NLRB 121.
'inasmuch as 'General Counsel failed to establish Vinson was promised a raise if
he left the Union, I recommend that the allegations of the complaint setting forth
promises'of promotions or'economic benefits to employees if they did not select the
Union'as their representative be dismissed.
'Concluding Findings in Case No. 26-RC-2142
Respondent contends that even if Section 8(a)(1) violations are found , consist-
ing of interrogation of Miller, Vinson , Gerlach , and the seven or eight unidentified
employees contacted by Ledbetter, the incidents are of such weak and isolated nature
as to have had no measurable effect on the election. In Clark Printing Company,
Inc., supra, the Board held:
W e 'are ' reluctant to dismiss as trivia any interrogation of employees as to how
.. , • they intend , to vote , in a pending representation case. Such conduct tends to
undermine the very purpose of a Board-conducted election , i.e., the opportunity
for an employee to cast a secret ballot without the necessity of publicly' declar-
ing his position toward a proposed bargaining representative.
Similar (conduct was found in the instant case. Furthermore , although there were
only 10 employees involved in the violative acts committed by Respondent, it
appears from the briefing received by the supervisors from Respondent 's counsel
that they were acting in concert while engaging in their violative conduct. In view
of all the circumstances involved herein, and the position taken by the Board in
Dal-Tex Optical Company, Inc., 137 NLRB 1782, 1786 that "Cond"uct violative of
Section 8(a) (1) if a fortiori, conduct which interferes with the exercise of a free
and untrammeled choice in election ," I find that Respondent improperly interfered
with and affected the outcome of the election held herein.
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. By interfering with , restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices proscribed by Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
'2. By engaging in said unfair labor practices , Respondent engaged in conduct
which improperly affected the results of the election.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
.4: Respondent ' did not engage in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, as alleged in the complaint , by, creating an impression of
surveillance of 'the union activities of its employees , and by making promises of
employee , promotions or other economic benefits if they did not select the Union as
their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices , I shall
.recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative
action of the type which is conventionally , ordered in such cases as provided in the
'Recommended Order, which I find necessary to remedy and to remove the effects of
the unfair labor practices, and to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that. Respondent's conduct improperly affected the results of the
election; I shall' recommend that the election be set aside and that another election be
conducted.
' [Recommended Order omitted from nublication.1