Edgcomb Metals Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 5, 1981

254 N.L.R.B. 1085 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

hletals
ar!d
Aln~ira
In
I
supportinl;
(:ounsel
Admil~istrative
Bcard
Decision
and
and
and
Respor~dent Ad-
ministratrve
Heineman ofice
employe^:^
thereby 8(a)(l)
merlt
.le
'The unper-
Heineman
admitted
conver!iation
Heineman
' Respmdent
Administ 'ative
unl:ss
(1950). 188 F.Zd
find-
Ings, excc:pt
infer
8(a)(l)
8(a)(l)
Ur-
8(a)(l)
alia,
8(a)(1)
8(a)(1)
Inc., Plant,
8(a)(l)
140
1085 EDGCOMB METALS CO.
Edgcomb Co., One of the Williams Compa-
nies Wilma Ursery. Case 25-CA-1174
March 5, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 9, 1980, Administrative Law
Judge Abbot Stevenson issued the attached
Decision this proceeding. Thereafter, Respon-
dent and he General Counsel filed exceptions and
briefs; Respondent filed a brief in oppo-
sition to the General Counsel's exceptions; and the
General filed a brief in support of part of
the Law Judge's Decision.
The has considered the record and the at-
tached in light of the exceptions and
briefs has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings,' conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge to adopt her recommended Order,
except as set forth below.
has excepted, inter alia, to the
Law Judge's finding that General
Manager Wood threatened Union President
George with plant closure if the
selected the Union to represent them
and violated Section of the Act. We
find in this exception.
Relyirg on Heineman's testimony that during a
casual conversation Wood told him that if the
Union successfully organized Respondent's office
clericals there was a possibility the plant would
close, t Administrative Law Judge concluded
that Wc od's alleged remark constituted a threat of
reprisal should the employees elect union represen-
tation. Administrative Law Judge was
suaded by Wood's denial of making such a threat,
but did note that Heineman's testimony on this
matter contained "certain weaknesses." In this
regard Respondent asserts that repeated-
ly changed his recollection of what Wood said to
him, that his mind was a "little blank"
about the incident, and was able to reconstruct the
with Wood only after being asked
leading questions by counsel for the General Coun-
sel. These leading questions were objected to by
Respordent's counsel, but the objections were
overru ed by the Administrative Law Judge. Our
review of the record establishes that Respondent's
characterization of Heineman's testimony is cor-
rect. exhibited a faulty and weak recall
has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not t o
overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi-
bility the clear preponderance o f all o f the relevant evidence con-
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc., 91 YLRB 54 enfd. 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing her
as noted below.
245 NLRB No.
of the conversation with Wood and had to be led
through much of his testimony by counsel for the
General Counsel. In sum, we find Heineman's testi-
mony to be of doubtful value in establishing the
particulars of the alleged conversation and hence
insufficient to sustain a violation of the Act. Ac-
cordingly, we shall dismiss this allegation of the
complaint.
The General Counsel has excepted, alia, to
the failure of the Administrative Law Judge to find
that Respondent's general manager, Wood, interro-
gated employee Ursery about her union activities
in violation of Section of the Act. The Ad-
ministrative Law Judge found that Wood met with
employee Ursery on September 7 and 11, 1979, to
discuss her union organizing activities at the plant.
During these interviews Wood informed Ursery
that he had heard she was organizing a union drive
among the office clericals, asked her why she
wanted a union and what her complaints were, and
expressed disappointment that Ursery felt com-
pelled to engage in such activities. The Administra-
tive Law Judge concluded that Wood's questioning
of Ursery interfered with, coerced, and restrained
Respondent's employees in the exercise of their
rights in violation of Section of the Act by
creating the impression that Respondent had
sery's union activities under surveillance. She fur-
ther concluded that Wood's solicitation of Ursery's
grievances and his implied promise to adjust her
grievances were also in violation of Section
of the Act.
The General Counsel contends, inter that in
light of her findings concerning Wood's question-
ing of Ursery on September 7 and 11, 1979, it was
error for the Administrative Law Judge to fail to
find that these interviews constituted unlawful in-
terrogations in violation of Section of the
Act as alleged in the complaint. The General
Counsel further requests that the Board issue an ap-
propriate Order and notice concerning such viola-
tion.
We find merit in the General Counsel's excep-
tion. We have held that an employer's inquiries
into the union sentiments of its employees, even in
the absence of a threat of reprisal or promise of
benefit, or when the employee's union sympathies
are well known, results in an unlawful interroga-
tion in violation of Section of the Act. PPG
Industries, Lexington Fiber Glass Divi-
sion, 251 NLRB 1146 (1980). We find, therefore,
that Wood's questioning of Ursery on September 7
and 11, 1979, concerning her union activities con-
stituted unlawful interrogations in violation of Sec-
tion of the Act, and we shall modify the
recommended Order and notice accordingly.
1080 NATlONAL
I'ursuant 10(c)
Or~ler
l(a):
ORDER
WE
EDGCOMB CO., ONE
ALMIRA
J ~ l y
IS
Section 8(a)(l)
ar~d
erlployees'
oflice
Respondent
PRACTICES
1,
oflice
ofiice
Sep- 6
8(a)(I)
Ur-
c~mmi t t ed .~
' orgvization
Sec. 2(2), (6). (7).
AFL-CIO, Sec.
2(5)
DECISIONS OF LABOR RELATIONS HOARD
ORDER
to Section of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi-
fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent,
Edgcomb Metals Co., One of the Williams Compa-
nies, Indianapolis, Indiana, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the said recommended Order, as so modified:
I . Substitute the following for paragraph
"(a) Creating the impression that union activities
of employees are under surveillance; soliciting
grievances and promising to adjust them; instituting
a job-posting procedure or granting other benefits;
or interrogating employees about their union activi-
ties with the intent of interfering with employees'
Section 7 rights."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
APPENDIX

NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES

POSTED BY OF T H E

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

An Agency of the United States Government

WE WILL NOT create the impression that the
union activities of employees are under sur-
veillance; WILL NOT solicit grievances and
promise to adjust them, institute a job-posting
procedure, grant other benefits, or interrogate
employees about their union activities with the
intent of interfering with employee rights
under Section 7 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in
their enjoyment of rights under Section 7 of
the Act.
METALS OF THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES
DECISION
ABBOT STEVENSON, Administrative Law
Judge: This case was heard at Indianapolis, Indiana, on
14, 1980. The complaint was issued February 29,
80, and thereafter amended. The Respondent duly filed
ar answer to the amended complaint.
The issues are whether or not the Respondent violated
of the National Labor Relations Act, by
interrogating employees, soliciting employee complaints
promising to adjust them, creating an impression that
union activities are under surveillance, threat-
ening plant closure i f employees selected union represen-
tation, issuing verbal warnings to union activist Wilma
Ursery, granting salary increases, and instituting a job
bidding procedure for employees. For the reasons
fully set forth below, I conclude that the Respondent
committed some, but not all, of the violations alleged.'
Upon the entire record, including my observation of
the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consider-
ation of the briefs filed by the and the Gen-
eral Counsel, I make the following:
1. UNFAIR LABOR
A. Background
The Respondent acquired this Indianapolis, Indiana,
steel products plant from Jones and Laughlin Steel Cor-
poration on March 1978. In late May or early June
1979, Robert Wood assumed control as general manager
of the plant. Other admitted supervisors and agents in-
clude Raymond Robbins, comptroller, and David Jones,
department manager. The approximately 108 production
and maintenance employees of the plant are represented
by Local 7349, USA.
On September 5 or 6, 1979, Wilma Ursery, a billing
clerk, approached USA about organizing the Respon-
dent's approximately 41 employees. The Union
gave her literature and authorization cards, and she con-
tacted about 22 of the office employees in the plant park-
ing lot and at their homes, and provided them with blank
authorization cards. Ursery was the only employee
who engaged in organizational activity. She signed a
card and mailed it to the Union September 12. One other
office employee, Gary Garrett, thereafter signed and
mailed a card on September 19, 1979. The Respondent
admits it was aware of Ursery's union activity on
tember 7, 1979.
B. Violations of Section of the Act
(1) The complaint alleges in effect that on September
7, 1979, General Manager Robert Wood created the im-
pression that employees' union activities were under sur-
veillance; interrogated Wilma Ursery; and solicited
sery's grievances and promised to adjust them, and later
did adjust them. The Respondent admits that General
Manager Wood met with Ursery on September 7, but
denies that any unfair labor practices were
As soon as General Manager Wood learned from an
assistant general manager and others that Ursery was the
N o issue is raised as to jurisdiction or labor status. Based
on the allegations o f the complaint and the admissions o f the answer, I
find that the employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning o f
and and that Local 7349. United Steelworkers o f
America, is a labor organization within the meaning o f
o f the Act.
T h e facts as to these allegations are based on an amalgamation o f the
testimony o f Ursery. Wood, and Comptroller Robbins. To the extent that
their accounts differ, I have been mindful o f the strengths and weaknesses
o f each, and have considered the probabilities in light o f the record as a
whole.
CO.
he1
pertinent
h8:ard
asketl
wantcmd
s h ~
sali~ries.
moire
a r~d
650
a.ld
W3od
the
Robbins
ht:r
Robbins
pllrpose
discour,~ge
Ur-
words
cclmplaints
into
grieva~~ces.
im-
impliec'ly
8(a](l) Act.3
Fads , lnc., 144 (1970,
F.2d (1st Chevmlet Inc..
191 (1971), F 2 d
(2 j
surveillance.*
of ice
you
8(a)(1).5
Robbins accounts-
-and
Heineman
Sunnyland 590. (1976),
'
Fanis, Inc..
EDGCOMB METALS 1087
leader in the union organization drive, he immediately
called into his office to discuss it. I find that the fol-
lowing remarks were made: Wood told Ursery
he had she was the one organizing a union drive
and her why she wanted a union and what her
complainis were. Ursery responded that the reasons why
she the union were that there were no opportuni-
ties for promotion; she complained about her superior,
Comptroller Robbins, moving the billing clerks upstairs
which felt was a "punishment"; and she complained
about Wood asked what job Ursery would like
to have and Ursery replied she did not know what job
was available but she could do any job in accounting.
Wood said he did not know anything about the billing
clerk but would check with Comptroller Robbins.
Wood told Ursery that the Respondent did not give
across-the-board pay increases but gave only merit in-
creases he pointed out that Ursery had recently re-
ceived a increase. Ursery responded that it was not
enough the Respondent was a year behind in pay
raises. expressed disappointment at the turn of
events, protested that he had been in charge of the plant
only 90 days, asked Ursery to give him some time, and
promised to look into her complaints.
Early next week, Wood discussed the billing clerk
move with and the two of them then called
Ursery to the office again. When she arrived, Wood re-
minded he had promised to get back to her on the
billing cle-k move. then explained the reason he
had moved the jobs and stated he had no intention of
moving them back.
These facts clearly establish that General Manager
Wood's was to nip the union drive in the bud by
using a combination of intimidation and implied promises
to the activities of its leader. Thus, promptly
upon hearing about the organizing campaign and
sery's leaclership role, within hours of her initial ap-
proach to the Union, Wood singled her out for a person-
al interview in his office where he informed her in so
many that he was aware of what she was up to.
This was immediately followed by a solicitous inquiry
into her and grievances and implied promises
to check the complaints voiced. Shortly thereafter,
Wood demonstrated the sincerity of his intentions by
meeting with her again for further discussion of one of
her And although the grievance was denied
in this meeting, there was no specific disavowal or even
mention of the other complaints which Wood had
pliedly promised to "look into" if she would only give
him some time to do so. On the contrary, as found
below, one of the other complaints voiced was substan-
tially adjus: ed by the posting of an office clerical job. In
all these circumstances, I conclude that the Respondent
interfered with, coerced, and restrained its employees by
creating the impression that Ursery's union activities
were under surveillance and by soliciting her grievances
and promising to adjust them, in violation of
Section of the
Pilgrim 234 N L R B 136, enforcement denied
in part 589 232 Cir.); Merle Lindsay 231 N L R B
478. fn. 2 (1977); Reliance Electric Company. Madison Plant Mechanical
Drives Division, NLRB 44. 46 enfd. 457 503 (6th Cir.
The complaint alleges in effect, and the Respon-
dent denies, that Supervisor David Jones on September
1 1 , 1979, interrogated employee Mary Contreras and cre-
ated the impression of
Jones called Contreras into his on an afternoon
in September or October and told her, among other
things, that "As you undoubtedly know, someone is
trying to form a union. And I just wanted to talk to
about that." He said there were good things and bad
things about unions that she should look into before
committing herself and "he knew that Wilma [Ursery]
was the one that was organizing the union" and "Rumor
has it that you're helping Wilma organize the union."
Jones added that Contreras was free t o d o as she wished,
"I just want you to know that we're aware of it."
I find that although Jones disclaimed any intent to in-
timidate Contreras the reasonable effect of this interview,
when considered in the overall context of the Respon-
dent's reactions to the attempt to organize its office em-
ployees and the unfair labor practices committed, was to
create the impression that employees' union activities
were under surveillance, and I conclude that the Respon-
dent thereby interfered with, coerced, and restrained its
employees in violation of Section
(3) The complaint alleges that on October 3, 1979, the
Respondent put into effect a job-bidding procedure for
office employees. The Respondent admits posting a job
on or about that date but denies any intent to interfere
with employees' rights under the Act.
General Manager Wood explained that he approved a
request by Comptroller that the job of
payable clerk be posted. He said that although Jones and
Laughlin Steel had no job-posting policy, it had been a
Respondent policy for several years. This seemed an op-
portune time to institute such a program at this plant be-
cause the Respondent had placed the people it particular-
ly wanted in jobs by that time, as several people
were interested in the accounts-payable clerkship, "this
was the time t o find out who's there."
I find Wood's explanation for the timing of the posting
of this job, thereby instituting for the first time a bidding
procedure for vacant office clerical positions in this
plant, vague and unconvincing and I d o not credit it. In
my opinion, the timing is more plausibly accounted for
by the recent appearance of the possibility of the office
employees' becoming unionized and Wood's immediate
implied promise to adjust the grievances solicited from
the leading union advocate, Wilma Ursery, one of which
specifically went to promotion opportunities. Viewed in
this light, and in light of the other unfair labor practices
committed, including Wood's subsequent conversation
with Union President George discussed below
revealing Wood's continuing hostility toward unioniza-
tion of the office employees, I find that a preponderance
of the credible evidence establishes that the Respondent
1972). Cf. Packing Company, 227 NLRB 597 relied
on by the Respondent, in which no promises were made or implied.
The facts with respect to this allegation are based on the testimony
of Contreras whose demeanor for truthfulness was more impressive than
that of Jones whose denials were uncertain and unpersuasive.
Pilgrim supra.
](I88
ernployees
allainst
8(a)(l)
dt:nies
U'ood Heineman
c lm.~re
repre~entat ive.~
atout
th:
H~:ineman ;hat
aniong Heineman
nct
tbtn
th,it
they
8(a)(l).
wege
Se3tember
tht
'There
during 1979.7
Thc
1979,
m o ~ t h s Sep-
tern
Cieneral
and
cha-t, Respon-
an-
Junc:
given,
of
~d
7
>f
to
Robbins
a.m.
4:45
Comptroller Robbins
o f f i ~ e . ~ Robbins
I5
Robbins
Robbins
Robbins
be-
"
Robbins
I5
Robbins
4:45
Robbins
an-
a Unery
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
introduced a job bidding procedure for office clerical
for the purpose of influencing employees
the Union, and I conclude that the Respondent
thereby interfered with their rights under Section 7, and
violated Section of the Act.
(4) The complaint alleges in effect and the answer
that in mid-November 1979 General Manager
threatened employee George with plant
if the office employees selected the Union as
their collective-bargaining
George Heineman, president of Steelworkers Local
7349, encountered General Manager Wood in the plant
3 weeks after he first heard about the union cam-
paign among the office employees in mid-October, and
following pertinent remarks were made: Wood asked
he knew about the union drive upstairs
the office employees; replied he was
directly involved but was friendly toward it. Wood
stated that he had taken it as a personal thing and
if the Union went in upstairs there was a possibility
would close the plant. I conclude that this remark
constituted a threat to deprive employees of employment
in reprisal for selecting union representation and that it
constituted a violation of Section
'5) The complaint alleges that the Respondent granted
increases throughout the following winter from
1, 1979, until January 1, 1980. The Respon-
dent contends that the increases were given pursuant to a
plan conceived and implemented before the advent of
Union.
is in evidence a chart listing the names of the
office employees and their dates of hire and last pay in-
creases, and showing the amount of salary increase given
each month from June through December
chart does not have a cutoff date as of September 7,
when the Respondent became aware of the union
campaign. It does show, however, that 7 salary increases
ranging from $50 to $150 were given during the 3
months of June through August; and that 27 salary in-
creases within the same range were given during the 4
September through December, 7 of them in
ber.
Manager Wood and his secretary, Maxeen
French, testified that French made up the basic chart,
listing the names of the office employees and their hire
last-increase dates, at Wood's request when he took
charge of the plant in early June 1979. Wood used the
he explained, to institute a policy of the
den: under which salary increases would be given on
nivc rsary date of hire. Wood made his final decisions in
and July on the dates and amounts of increases to
be after considering the employees' anniversary
dates, the recommendation of their supervisors, and the
difftrences in pay scales between this plant and other
plants of the Respondent.
;'he facts are based on Heineman's account. Although there were
certain weaknesses in Hetneman's testimony, he was overall more believ-
able than Wood,whose account this incident was uncertain, vacillat-
ing. a unpersuasive.
he actual employee names were deleted from the chart by agree-
ment the parties.
I credit Wood's testimony relevant to this allegation as
it was supported by Maxeen French, a generally credible
witness, because the chart seems genuine on its face, and
because this testimony is consistent with most if not all
the other facts found. Accordingly, as the decisions
grant these wage increases were made for lawful business
reasons before the advent of the Union, I recommend
that this allegation be dismissed.
(6) The complaint alleges that Comptroller Raymond
gave Wilma Ursery verbal warnings of tardiness
on November 21, 1979, and January 8, 1980. The Re-
spondent denies that the warnings constituted violations
of the Act.
Wilma Ursery's working hours were from 8 until
p.m., with 45 minutes for lunch. Her pay is not
docked for lateness. She conceded she had a problem
with tardiness in October 1979.
Ursery was late to work on the morning of November
21, 1979, and called her into the
testified he did so because Ursery had
had a late problem for some time and a number of
people, including General Manager Wood's secretary,
Maxeen French (who corroborated Robbins), comment-
ed on it. He informed Ursery he had noticed her tardi-
ness for some time, and that she had been minutes late
the day before and an hour late that day, and he did not
want the situation "to go any further." Ursery responded
she did not feel well during the night and overslept.
put a summary of the conversation, with a note
to the effect that he would "keep track of this in the
future" in Ursery's personnel file. After that day he in-
structed Ursery's supervisor, Nancy Sheets, to keep a
record of when Ursery came in late so he could deter-
mine whether her attendance was improving.
On January 2, 1980, Sheets gave a memo of
Ursery's tardiness during November and December but
took no action at that time.
On January 8, 1980, Ursery was half an hour late
cause her car froze up and sent for her and
charged her with being late that morning. He showed
her the record Sheets had made of her being late 5 min-
utes on November 26, minutes extra lunch on Novem-
ber 27, 5 minutes on November 28, 25 minutes on De-
cember 3, and 8 minutes on December 8. Ursery disa-
greed with some of the dates in the Sheets' report,
claimed she had made up the time when she was late,
and said that Penny Green was also late that morning.
told Ursery it was fine t o make up time but the
hours were 8 until and he expected her to be in the
office during that period. Ursery worked through lunch
on January 8.
testified he expects employees who are late to
make up the time but he also expects them to eat lunch.
It has been his practice, he said, to be tolerant toward
tardiness until others in his department begin noticing
and then he talks to the employee affected. When asked
what he did when employees failed to improve, he
T o the extent the accounts of Robbins' interviews of differ. I
rely on Robbins'. Ursery's testimony was marred by vagueness, uncer-
tainty, and a tendency to exaggerate.
Stmptember,
extra
b1:gan
lime. Robbins
1-I/2
45 late
Robbins
day
b e i ~ ~ g
;lo,
occ~r rence .
Robbills
s u p e r ~ i s e d . ~
Robbins
Moreovc,r,
llrsery
she
Re-
spondenr
that
Ursery
than
sh~:
of
treater1
precise
lestified
WoIfe
@:I5 Dillon:
10 Dillon's
issu1:d
Dillon c~ral
differt:nt
Robbins
O
11.
1 q c )
b
" A p p e n d i ~ . " ~ ~
l o inlerroga-
tion,
" Sec.
Regulalions
Sec.
findtngs.
l 2 event thac
EDGCOMB METALS CO. 1089
swered that he did not know because he had never been
confronted with such a situation.
Ursery testified that Penny Green, assistant supervisor
in the accounting department, was late "Quite an awful
lot" in October, and November. The Respon-
dent presented evidence to the effect that Green started
taking time on lunch breaks in December and
Sheets keeping a record of her lateness at that
On January 2, 1980, Sheets gave a memo
reporting that Green was hours late on December
20; and minutes in the morning and 20 minutes
late on lunch break December 26. Maxeen French also
reported seeing Green 10-20 minutes late on occasion.
called Green into his office on January 8, the
same he called Ursery in, and confronted Green
with 1 hour late that morning. She said she overs-
lept. He pointed out this was her third lateness since De-
cember and although he did not want to make a big
deal out of it, he also did not want it to become an every
day Green promised to make up the time.
testified there were no tardiness problems
with the other employees he
In my opinion the General Counsel has failed to estab-
lish that Robbins' warnings were given to Ursery be-
cause of her union activity. Thus, she admitted having a
lateness problem at the time of the union campaign, and
credibly testified, with corroboration by French,
that the problem continued into November, and it is un-
disputed that she was an hour late on November 21.
it seems likely that Sheets' record of her tar-
diness in November and December was accurate; even
though disagreed with some of Sheets' dates, she
did not disagree that she had been tardy. Ursery ad-
mitted was 25 minutes late on January 8, 1980. I can
see no significance in the fact that Ursery had been given
no prior warnings as there is no showing that the
had tolerated similar conduct by her before her
union activity. Nor are written policy or-employee meet-
ings necessary to establish what every working person
knows they are expected to be on time. Moreover,
that habitually called in when she expected to be
more 5 minutes late and made up the time, and had
what considered legitimate excuses for her lateness
on November 2 1 and January 8, d o not deprive her em-
ployer the right to issue warnings absent evidence that
it her differently from others who engaged in the
same conduct, and the evidence fails to show that it did.
A s oppcsed to Ursery's vague testimony about Green's
tardiness in the fall of 1979, the Respondent's evidence
was that as soon as Green developed a tendency
to abuse the working hours, it started keeping a record
Ursery about the alleged tardiness of other employees. Ruth
Wolfe: Ursery said she was half an hour late several times but Ursery did
not know whether Wolfe received any warnings: Maxeen French testi-
fied is assigned to the sales department and her regular working
hours are a.m. to 5 p.m. Josie Ursery said she was frequently
minutes but conceded that supervisor. Sales Manager David
Jones, a warning: Jones testified, and the record shows, he gave
an warning on August 5, 1979. David Linn: Ursery said Linn
was also late but she had no knowledge of any warning; Linn worked in
sales. Barbara Cole: Cole is in the accounting department, but Ursery
conceded she did not know how late Cole came to work because she was
on a floor. I find that this evidence does not indicate disparate
treatment cf Ursery.
and it reprimanded her also when her conduct was com-
parable to Ursery's.
In view therefore of the business reasons advanced for
the reprimands given to Ursery, the restraint shown
when declined to act on the evidence received
from Sheets on January 2, 1980, and the absence of con-
vincing evidence of disparate treatment, I conclude that
this allegation is not supported by a preponderance of
the credible evidence, and I recommend that it be dis-
missed.
THE REMEDY
In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, I recom-
mend that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist
from the unfair labor practices found, and from infring-
ing in any like o r related manner on its employees' rights
guaranteed by the Act. Nothing herein shall be taken as
justification for depriving employees of benefits they
now enjoy.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law and the entire record, and pursuant to Section
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER'
The Respondent, Edgcomb Metals Co., One of the
Williams Companies, Indianapolis, Indiana, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Creating the impression that union activities of em-
ployees are under surveillance; soliciting grievances and
promising to adjust them; instituting a job-posting proce-
dure o r granting other benefits with the intent of inter-
fering with employees' Section 7 rights; o r threatening
plant closure if employees select union representation.
(b) In any like o r related manner interfering with, re-
straining, o r coercing employees in the exercise of rights
under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its plant in Indianapolis, Indiana, copies of
the attached notice marked Copies of the
notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 25, after being duly signed by an authorized rep-
resentative of the Respondent, shall be posted by the Re-
spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
I find that the evidence fails to support the allegations of
or creation of impression of surveillance by Raymond Robbins, and
I recommend that these allegations be dismissed.
In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by 102.46 of
the Rules and of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided
in 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations. be adopted by the Board and
become its conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto
shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
In the this 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 Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
al-
Respon-
1.r IS I:URTHER ORIIFRID
1090 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by the Respondent to insure that the notices are not (b) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20
tered defaced, or covered by any other material. days from the date of this Order, what steps the
dent has taken to comply herewith.
that all allegations not specifi-
cally found herein be dismissed.