Foamex

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1994

315 N.L.R.B. 858 (N.L.R.B. 1994)

858
315 NLRB No. 126
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an admin-
istrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear prepon-
derance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incor-
rect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188
F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and
find no basis for reversing the findings.
Foamex, a Limited Partnership and United Paper-
workers International Union, AFL–CIO. Case
25–CA–22745
December 16, 1994
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS BROWNING
AND COHEN
On June 2, 1994, Administrative Law Judge Robert
W. Leiner issued the attached decision. The Respond-
ent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The Gen-
eral Counsel filed an answering brief, cross-exceptions,
and a supporting brief, to which the Respondent filed
a reply brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has de-
cided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and con-
clusions only to the extent consistent with this Deci-
sion and Order.
1. The judge found that the Respondent did not vio-
late Section 8(a)(1) by making a promise of benefits
to an employee during a union organizing campaign.
The General Counsel has excepted to this finding. For
the reasons stated below, we conclude that the Re-
spondent’s conduct violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The judge found that Supervisor Kurt Kleinrichert
asked employee James Thomas, the initiator of the
Union’s organizing drive, what the problems were in
the facility and why the employees wanted a union.
The judge found, and we agree, that this questioning
regarding the extent of union support constituted an
unlawful interrogation in violation of Section 8(a)(1).
After a further discussion of several employees’ prob-
lems, Kleinrichert went on to ask Thomas if straighten-
ing out certain problems with his vacation time would
change his mind regarding the Union. Thomas testified
that Kleinrichert also told him that he should watch out
because Plant Manager Banks had ‘‘a lot of spies.’’
The judge concluded that the statement in regard to
straightening out Thomas’ vacation problems did not
constitute a promise of benefits in violation of Section
8(a)(1). We disagree. Kleinrichert’s comment, made in
the context of an unlawful interrogation, impliedly
promised to rectify Thomas’ problems with his vaca-
tion time as an inducement for him not to support the
Union and therefore constitutes a violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. See Gem Urethane Corp., 284
NLRB 1349, 1363 (1987); Metropolitan Life Insurance
Co., 256 NLRB 626, 633 (1981).
The General Counsel further excepts to the judge’s
failure to make a finding that Kleinrichert’s statement
that Banks had ‘‘a lot of spies’’ created an impression
of surveillance, as alleged in the complaint. In light of
the other unfair labor practices committed by
Kleinrichert in this conversation with Thomas, we find
that Supervisor Kleinrichert’s comment regarding spies
created an unlawful impression of surveillance in vio-
lation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Lucky 7 Lim-
ousine, 312 NLRB 770, 771 (1993).
2. The judge also found that the Respondent did not
violate Section 8(a)(1) by coercively interrogating its
employees regarding a group letter in support of union
organizing. We also find merit in the General Coun-
sel’s exception to this finding.
The Respondent, by Plant Manager Banks, ques-
tioned its employees regarding the authenticity of their
signatures on a prounion letter addressed to the Re-
spondent’s employees at another plant, who were
scheduled to vote in a union election the next day. The
judge found that the Respondent had a valid interest in
determining the authenticity of its employees’ signa-
tures in order to permit the LaPorte supervisors to
rebut the inference of support from the Fort Wayne
employees. To the contrary, we find that the cir-
cumstances of the Respondent’s individual questioning
of employees constituted coercive interrogation.
The letter signed by the Fort Wayne employees
clearly constituted union activity of employees pro-
tected by Section 7 of the Act. Further, the individual
questioning occurred without any assurance against re-
prisal and was in the context of numerous unfair labor
practices. Finally, we do not find that ascertaining the
authenticity of the employees’ signatures constituted a
legitimate reason justifying interrogation regarding
their protected activity. We note that the Respondent
had other means, such as a comparison of the pur-
ported signatures with those contained in the employ-
ees’ records in the Respondent’s possession, to ascer-
tain their authenticity. See Master Security Services,
270 NLRB 543, 550 (1984).
859FOAMEX
1 The allegations of a separate complaint in Case 25–CA–22666
were settled and severed by the Regional Director prior to the open-
ing of the hearing. Those allegations regarded alleged unfair labor
practices occurring at Respondent’s plant in LaPorte, Indiana.
2 The original charge in Case 25–CA–22745 was filed and served
by the Union, as described hereinafter, on September 16, 1993. The
Union’s amended charge in this case was filed on November 9,
1993, and served on Respondent on November 10, 1993.
3 The name of Respondent appears as amended at the hearing.
4 The name of the Union appears as amended at the hearing.
3. The judge also failed to make a finding regarding
the complaint allegation that in its meetings with
groups of employees during the organizing campaign
the Respondent unlawfully solicited grievances. We
find merit in this exception.
The judge found that Plant Superintendent Boestar
asked the employees in these meetings about their
problems and asked for suggestions of possible man-
agement solutions. We find that these statements con-
stituted grievance solicitation with an implied promise
to resolve them, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act. See Matheson Fast Freight, 297 NLRB 63, 69
(1989); Reliance Electric Co., 191 NLRB 44, 46
(1971), enfd. 457 F.2d 503 (6th Cir. 1972).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondent,
Foamex, a Limited Partnership, Fort Wayne, Indiana,
with its general partner being 21 Foam Co., Inc., its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the Order as modified.
1. Substitute the following as paragraph 1(a).
‘‘(a) Unlawfully threatening employees with dis-
charge and other reprisals because of their union or
other protected concerted activities; coercively interro-
gating them concerning their membership in, support
of, and sympathy for the Union or any other labor or-
ganization; telling them that it would be futile for them
to select the Union, or any other labor organization, as
their collective-bargaining representative; interfering
with employees in the exercise of their rights guaran-
teed by Section 7 of the Act by soliciting grievances
or promising them benefits, in order to discourage their
union activity; or creating the impression of surveil-
lance of their lawful union activities.’’
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the ad-
ministrative law judge.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that
we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has
ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully threaten them with dis-
charge or other reprisals because of their membership
in, sympathy for, or activities on behalf of United Pa-
perworkers International Union, AFL–CIO or any other
labor organization, nor will we coercively interrogate
our employees concerning their union or other pro-
tected concerted activities, tell them that it will be fu-
tile to select a labor organization as their collective-
bargaining representative, solicit grievances or promise
them benefits in order to discourage union activity, or
create the impression of surveillance of their union or
other protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
FOAMEX, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
Merrie Thompson, Esq., for the General Counsel.
W. Kerby Bowling II and Joseph M. Crout, Esqs. (Bowling,
Bowling & Associates), of Memphis, Tennessee, for the
Respondent.
Ted Curtis Sautter, International Organizer, of North Web-
ster, Indiana, for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT W. LEINER, Administrative Law Judge. This erst-
while consolidated matter1 was heard in Fort Wayne, Indi-
ana, on March 24, 1994, on the General Counsel’s com-
plaint, dated November 18, 1993, as amended at the hearing,
which alleges, in substance,2 that in July, August, and Sep-
tember 1993, Respondent,3 by name supervisors, violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by coercive interrogation, creating
an impression of unlawful surveillance, telling employees
that unionization4 would be futile, threatening them with dis-
charge and other unspecified reprisals, soliciting employee
complaints and grievances, and promising them increased
benefits and improved terms and conditions of employment.
All of the above, constituting violations of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act, allegedly interfered with, restrained, and coerced
employees in the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act (the Act).
Respondent filed a timely answer admitting certain allega-
tions of the complaint, as amended at the hearing, denying
others, and denying the commission of unfair labor practices.
At the hearing, the parties were represented by counsel,
were given full opportunity to call and examine witnesses, to
submit relevant oral and written evidence, and to argue orally
on the record. At the close of the hearing the parties waived
final argument and elected to file posthearing briefs which
have been carefully considered.
On the entire record, including the briefs, and on my most
particular observation of the demeanor of the witnesses as
they testified, comparing such testimony with the testimony
of adverse witnesses, the interests of the witnesses, and docu-
mentary evidence, I make the following
860 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5 The complaint alleges and Respondent also admits that the fol-
lowing persons are its supervisors and agents within the meaning of
Sec. 2(11) and (13) of the Act: William Banks, plant manager; Kurt
Kleinrichert, maintenance supervisor; Bruce Boestar, plant super-
intendent; Greg Dee, manager; and Wally Myers, supervisor.
6 At the time of the hearing, employee Kevin Ebnit was deceased
(Tr. 61).
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. RESPONDENT AS STATUTORY EMPLOYER
At the opening of the hearing, the parties amended the
complaint regarding the name of Respondent. The General
Counsel thereby alleged and Respondent admitted that at all
material times Respondent, Foamex, a Limited Partnership, is
a Delaware Limited Partnership, with the general partner
being 21 Foam Co., Inc. At all material times, Respondent,
with an office and place of business in Fort Wayne, Indiana
(the Fort Wayne facility), has been engaged in the manufac-
ture of foam and latex products. During the 12-month period
preceding issuance of the complaint, Respondent, in the con-
duct of its business operations, purchased and received at its
Fort Wayne facility goods valued in excess of $50,000 di-
rectly from points outside the State of Indiana and, in the
same period, sold and shipped from the facility goods valued
in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the State of
Indiana. The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I
find that at all material times, Respondent has been an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. THE UNION AS A STATUTORY LABOR ORGANIZATION
The complaint, as amended at the opening of the hearing,
alleges, and Respondent then admitted, that at all material
times, the Union here is United Paperworkers International
Union, AFL–CIO, formerly known as International Union,
Allied Industrial Workers of America, AFL–CIO. I find, as
Respondent admits, that at all material times the Union has
been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.5
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
In the summer and fall of 1993, Respondent’s Fort Wayne
facility employed a total of 135 employees of whom about
90 were production and maintenance employees. Sometime
in or about late July 1993, Fort Wayne employee James H.
Thomas, a machine operator, contacted Union Organizer Ted
Sautter by telephone and thereafter spoke to 15 to 20 em-
ployees seeking to organize them and telling them of a forth-
coming meeting to be held in Thomas’ home. Apparently at
or about the same time, an organizational effort, 100 miles
away, at Respondent’s LaPorte, Indiana plant was ending. A
Board-conducted election at the LaPorte facility was held on
Friday, September 10, 1993. Neither the General Counsel nor
the Union contest Respondent’s assertion (G.C. Exh. 2) that,
at the LaPorte facility, the unit employees rejected unioniza-
tion by a vote of 74 to 40 with 8 challenged ballots. Further,
there is no dispute that Respondent vigorously opposed
unionization in and among the 90 production maintenance
employees at Respondent’s Fort Wayne plant (G.C. Exh. 2).
In any event, sometime in late July or early August, about
four or five production employees met in the Thomas home
pursuant to his advising them of the union meeting to be
held there. Thomas told them that a union representative
would be at the house; that they could speak to him and de-
cide if they wanted to try the Union or not. The meeting oc-
curred about a week after Thomas first contacted Union Or-
ganizer Sautter.
At about 2:30 p.m. of the day prior to the union meeting
at Thomas’ house, Thomas testified that while he was at
work cleaning up scraps at his machine, Plant Manager Wil-
liam Banks stopped him and said that he had heard that
Thomas was having a union meeting at his house. Thomas
testified that he denied it but said that there would probably
be a union in the plant because the employees were afraid
for their jobs. While Thomas recalled that the conversation
continued, he did not recall the remainder but recalled that
Banks then walked away. About 15 feet from where this
conversation took place, two employees, Cindy Collins and
Kevin Ebnit, having observed the conversation, approached
Thomas, Collins remarking that Thomas was not looking
well.6 When Cindy Collins asked him what they had talked
about, Thomas told her that Banks knew about the union
meeting. Cindy Collins said that someone had probably told
Banks of the meeting.
The next day, after Thomas met with the union organizer
and the four employees, Banks approached him at his ma-
chine with Thomas’ attendance record. Banks told him that
by August, problems concerning Thomas’ attendance record,
particularly his annual leave record, would be cleared up (Tr.
66). As Banks was walking away he told Thomas to remem-
ber that: ‘‘the same tide that rolls in rolls out’’ (Tr. 67). Em-
ployees Mack Daniels and Jim Minnick observed the con-
versation and then approached Thomas when Banks left.
They asked him what they had been talking about and Thom-
as told them (Tr. 69).
After the union meeting at Thomas’ house, Thomas and
employees Jim Minnick, Harold Bauermeister, and other em-
ployees distributed union cards in the street in front of Re-
spondent’s parking lot in the morning (Tr. 70). Thomas also
passed out cards in the break area and in the smoking area.
Although Banks speaks to Thomas and other employees
on the shop floor regularly, he denied that he ever spoke
with Thomas concerning the holding of the union meeting at
Thomas’ house (Tr. 222). He also denied speaking with
Thomas regarding Thomas’ attendance record and specifi-
cally denied using the expression ‘‘the tide rolls in and the
tide rolls out.’’
Sometime in late August or early September, Thomas tes-
tified that he had conversations with Maintenance Supervisor
Kurt Kleinrichert. Thomas testified that one morning, while
he was working at his machine, Kleinrichert approached him
and wanted to know what the problems were and why the
employees wanted the Union (Tr. 79). Thomas told him that
the employees were afraid for their jobs and that Respondent
changed the rules from day to day and didn’t stick to its
rules. Thomas said that Kleinrichert told him that maybe
things would change because Respondent was planning on
hiring a personnel manager. Thomas answered that Respond-
ent could hire anybody they wanted to but that Banks was
in ultimate control and had the final say (Tr. 80).
861FOAMEX
Kleinrichert then told Thomas that he himself had been in
a controversial discussion with Banks concerning Banks’
reprimanding employees in the facility and that Banks told
him that if he did not like it at the facility, he (Kleinrichert)
could ‘‘hit the road’’ (Tr. 80).
Finally, Kleinrichert asked Thomas whether, if Banks
straightened out Thomas’ vacation problem, that would
‘‘make things better’’? Banks said it would ‘‘make things
better but it would not solve the problem which was that the
Respondent can do what it wants to do’’ (Tr. 83).
Kleinrichert told him that he should watch out because
Banks had a lot of spies. Thomas told him that it made no
difference to him because everybody knew that Thomas was
for the Union anyway.
Indeed, there is no dispute that in prior union organiza-
tional efforts, Thomas was identified as a union supporter
(Tr. 127–128; 182–183).
On the next day, Kleinrichert approached Thomas (Tr. 85)
and told him that Plant Superintendent Bruce Boester was
going to have meetings with employees and Kleinrichert
asked him if he would go and talk to Boester. Thomas
agreed to meet with Boestar.
In fact, within about a week after the present Union’s or-
ganizational effort (Tr. 88), Plant Superintendent Boestar and
Supervisor Greg Dee had group meetings with employees.
This meeting between Thomas and Boester, however, was a
one-on-one meeting.
At the group meetings, Boestar had inquired into the em-
ployees’ problems and asked the employees whether they
could work out their problems in the plant. The word union
was not mentioned but Boestar wanted to know what the em-
ployees’ problems were (Tr. 89). Boestar also asked the em-
ployees to give Respondent a chance to see if they could
work things out; and that things would improve because new
supervision had just taken over from the old system (Tr. 90).
A week later, Kleinrichert approached Thomas and, as
above-noted, asked him to meet one on one with Boestar.
At this one-on-one meeting, Boestar asked him why he
and the employees wanted the Union (Tr. 122) and what
good a union would do. Thomas told him that the only thing
a union does is make the employer stick to a written rule
which exists for a 3-year period (Tr. 90–91). Thomas told
Boestar that he knew, and Boestar knew, that a union was
not going to get anything that was not subject to negotiation
(Tr. 92–93).
About 2 weeks after the conversation with Boestar, Super-
visor Dee approached Thomas who was working at his ma-
chine and they engaged in a conversation relating to com-
plaints and gripes (Tr. 95). Dee told Thomas to give Plant
Manager Banks ‘‘a chance’’; that changes and improvements
were going to be made (Tr. 96). With regard to Dee’s asking
Thomas to give management a chance because ‘‘there were
going to be some changes made,’’ Thomas admitted that in
the spring of 1993, before the Union appeared, there was a
meeting of employees after Banks had become plant man-
ager. Banks told them employment conditions were going to
change and that there would be different pay scales and
raises. In fact a large portion of the plant received a pay in-
crease in the first part of July 1993 before any union activity
occurred (Tr. 124–125).
B. Kleinrichert’s Testimony
Kleinrichert testified that in August 1993 he was called to
Thomas’ machine by Supervisor Myers because of a mal-
function on Thomas’ machine.
After discussing machine problems and other problems in-
cluding how both Thomas and Kleinrichert were subject to
stress on the job, and where Kleinrichert was giving Banks
a lot of heat because of the volume of production that Re-
spondent was requiring (Tr. 169), Banks ultimately told
Kleinrichert (and as Thomas testified) that if Kleinrichert
could not handle the job, he should quit (Tr. 170).
Kleinrichert testified that the matter of the Union came up
when, describing the attendance record problems that Re-
spondent said he had, Thomas said he was ‘‘getting the
shaft’’ and that was one of the reasons why he needed a
union (Tr. 171). Kleinrichert testified that the above con-
versation was the only conversation with Kleinrichert in
which the union issue was raised (Tr. 173). In particular,
Kleinrichert denied ever mentioning to Thomas that Plant
Manager Banks had spies among the employees (Tr. 175);
denied questioning Thomas about other employees’ union
sympathies or activities (Tr. 175); but Kleinrichert did admit
asking Thomas whether, if Respondent straightened out his
vacation problems, that would change his mind about any-
thing or help him (Tr. 176). That was in the same conversa-
tion in which Thomas said that Respondent’s position with
regard to his vacation problem was one of the reasons why
the employees needed a union (Tr. 176).
Regardless whether there was one or two conversations
between Kleinrichert and Thomas, I find, in view of
Kleinrichert’s admission on his own direct examination, that,
in the same conversation in which the question of the neces-
sity of having a union occurred he asked Thomas whether,
if Thomas’ vacation problem was straightened out, that
would change his mind. I do not regard this as an implied
promise of fixing the vacation problem.
Contrary to Kleinrichert’s recollection and denial, I credit
Thomas’ testimony that Kleinrichert asked him not only why
Thomas wanted the Union but why the employees wanted
the Union. However innocent Kleinrichert’s intention was in
raising the question, and notwithstanding that Thomas was an
open and well-known union advocate, and notwithstanding
that the question why Thomas, a known union advocate,
wanted the Union may have been privileged under the
Board’s present rule regarding the necessity for a coercive
element in unlawful interrogation, there is no such privilege
attaching to Kleinrichert’s questioning with regard to why
other employees wanted the Union. Thus while Sunnyvale
Medical Center, 277 NLRB 1217 (1985), may support a doc-
trine of a lack of coerciveness in the inquiry to a prominent
union adherent of his own union sentiments (absent other co-
ercive elements), Kleinrichert could not lawfully inquire why
other employees wanted the Union. NLRB v. Laredo Coca
Cola Bottling Co., 613 F.2d 1338 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. de-
nied 449 U.S. 889 (1980). Thus while Rossmore House, 269
NLRB 1176 (1984), may require a showing of coerciveness
under all the circumstances of the case before unlawful inter-
rogation is found, where an attempt is made to seek out the
extent of employee support, as Kleinrichert’s question sug-
gested, it was designed to have Thomas divulge the extent
of union organization among the employees. The act is de-
signed so that employees are permitted to keep such informa-
862 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
7 Based on Banks’ and Bauermiester’s credited testimony, I find
that the LaPorte letter was circulated and signed in Fort Wayne on
Thursday morning, September 9, and circulated at LaPorte later on
the same day. It was faxed to Banks later on September 9. Banks
therefore spoke to Bauermiester and threatened him in the morning
of the next day, Friday, September 10.
tion to themselves. Even low-keyed or friendly interrogation,
designed to discover the extent of union organization and the
basis for it, is unlawful, NLRB v. Laredo Coca Cola Bottling
Co., supra; Quemetco, Inc., 223 NLRB 470 (1976). Em-
ployer knowledge of employee union sympathy, gained by
unlawful inquiry, tends to prevent its free exercise. See
Crown, Cork & Seal Co., 308 NLRB 445, 448–451 (1992).
In short, I find that Kleinrichert’s question to Thomas regard-
ing the reasons for other employees supporting the Union,
certainly in the presence of Respondent’s hostility to the
union organizational attempt, violates Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act. This is the only violation I find with regard to
Kleinrichert.
With regard to the Boestar private meeting, which Boestar
denies occurred (Tr. 191–192), I credit Thomas. While it is
true that Boestar asked Thomas what good a union would do
him, and the conversation related to Thomas stating that a
union would require Respondent to observe its own rules, I
find nothing coercive in this conversation concerning why
Thomas, a known and open union advocate, wanted the
Union. The same is not true regarding Boestar’s inquiring
why the employees wanted the Union (Tr. 122). Such a ques-
tion, I have noted with regard to Kleinrichert’s similar ques-
tion (Tr. 79), violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
With regard to Supervisor Dee admonishing Thomas to
give Respondent a chance and that there would be improve-
ments over the old administration, I find, consistent with Re-
spondent’s argument, that the statement is ambiguous. The
statement did not necessarily suggest that Respondent would
improve working conditions because of the advent of the
Union and as a device to thwart the union organizing effort;
rather, it could have easily have referred back to the fact that
Respondent, in June or July 1993, before the advent of the
Union, raised wages to a substantial portion of Respondent’s
unit employees. Thus Dee’s admonition to Thomas could
well relate to giving Respondent a chance to fulfill its prior
promises to continually improve working conditions which
promise occurred well before the advent of the union orga-
nizing effort. I therefore recommend to the Board that the al-
legation regarding Dee’s soliciting employee complaints and
promising increased benefits and improving terms and condi-
tions of employment be dismissed.
Further, to the extent that the complaint alleges other acts
of Kleinrichert in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I
recommend to the Board that they be dismissed as unproven.
C. The Testimony of Harold S. Bauermeister
Bauermeister, employed by Respondent for 24 years, is a
machine operator like Thomas. Although Bauermeister testi-
fied that he’d openly passed out union literature and cards
in July 1993, Banks did not identify Bauermeister as a union
advocate and testified that he knew only that Thomas and
two other employees (Jim Minnick and Mack Daniels) dis-
tributed the cards at the plant gate (Tr. 248–249).
On or about the morning of September 9, 1993, on the sta-
tionery of the Union, 12 unit employees at the Fort Wayne
plant signed a letter addressed to their ‘‘fellow Foamex
workers’’ at the LaPorte Plant wishing them ‘‘good luck on
your vote to unionize this Friday [September 10, 1993].’’
This document (G.C. Exh. 3) also states that the Fort Wayne
plant employees were organizing their own union; that the
‘‘only way to secure what we have and get better wages,
benefits and working conditions is to have a union contract’’;
that the employees want to ‘‘go forward and organize all
non-union Foamex plants in Indiana’’; and that as union
members, the employees would ‘‘make Foamex a better
more secure place to work.’’ The first signature appearing
thereon is James H. Thomas’. The fourth signature is Harold
L. Bauermeister. The fifth of the dozen signatures is that of
Ruby Williams. The signers’ purpose was to have the docu-
ment distributed immediately before the September 10 elec-
tion at the LaPorte plant to show support of the Fort Wayne
employees for unionization in LaPorte.
Fort Wayne Plant Manager William Banks first saw this
document (G.C. Exh. 3) later on Thursday, September 9,
when it was faxed to him from the LaPorte Plant by the
LaPorte facility plant manager (Tr. 223). Banks understood
from LaPorte that the document had been distributed to all
of the LaPorte hourly employees. On the next day (Septem-
ber 10), he spoke to the employees whose names appeared
on the document. First was Ruby Williams because her
workstation was the first on his tour. His conversation with
Ruby Williams will be treated below.
Banks testified that he told Harold Bauermeister approxi-
mately the same thing that he told Ruby Williams. He asked
him if his signature was on the letter and when Bauermeister
said that it was, he told Bauermeister that he was surprised
to see his name there; and was a little bit hurt and embar-
rassed that Bauermeister would involve himself ‘‘in activi-
ties, union organizing activities, outside of this facility’’ (Tr.
226). Banks testified that he told Bauermeister, as he told
Williams, that he had the right to organize in Fort Wayne
and ‘‘nothing is going to happen to you . . . . [But] I do
think its out of place and in ill taste for you to be involved
in activities at the Foamex LaPorte facility’’ (Tr. 226). Banks
testified that Bauermeister made no response. If I credited
Banks’ testimony, then in the absence of any threat or further
statement of coercion with regard to Bauermeister’s joining
in support for the union effort at the LaPorte facility, I would
find that Bank’s statement that it was out of place and in ill
taste to engage in such activity falls considerably short of re-
straint or coercion. Banks’ hurt feelings and surprise would
amount only to expressions of purely personal opinion about
Bauermeister’s protected activities. Absent some reference to
Bauermeister’s disloyalty or other threats or coercion, an ex-
pression of hurt feelings and surprise does not amount to un-
lawful restraint or coercion within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. Oklahoma Installation Co., 309 NLRB
776 (1992). For reasons appearing hereafter, however, I do
not credit Banks concerning his conversation with
Bauermeister. I credit Bauermeister.
Bauermeister testified that in the morning of the day after
he signed the document7 supporting the LaPorte organization
effort, Banks came up behind him while he was operating his
machine, tapped him on the shoulder, and asked him to ver-
ify his signature on that document (G.C. Exh. 3). After
863FOAMEX
8 Banks admitted (Tr. 219–220) that he had a bathroom conversa-
tion with Thomas in September 1993. Banks testified that he told
Thomas only that there was information being spread around the
Fort Wayne facility that the LaPorte facility was going to have a $2
pay cut. Banks says that he urged Thomas to tell the truth and to
let the employees know that there was not going to be a pay cut
at LaPorte (Tr. 219–220).
9 To the extent that Banks testified that Barfield said he never read
the document before he signed it (Tr. 227–228), such testimony may
be technically true. To the extent that, Banks, by such testimony,
was implying that Barfield didn’t know the contents of the LaPorte
letter, I would not accept such implication.
Bauermeister admitted that the signature was his,
Bauermeister said that Banks said to him:
[T]he next thing you do wrong, you’ll be fired. So you
better do your job and you better do it well. [As Banks
started to walk away, he said] when you . . . bring an-
other company’s business into ours . . . you cross bor-
der lines. . . . You better do your job and you better
do it well, from here on out. Don’t expect any favors
from us and we wont expect any favors from you. . . .
Oh, by the way, I have on record that you threatened
to walk out.
Bauermeister asked him when he had threatened to walk
out and Banks said that he was not going into that issue and
walked away (Tr. 136).
Bauermeister admitted that 13 or 14 years before this con-
versation, he threatened to walk off the job; also, that about
a year before he gave his affidavit to the NLRB in this case,
in a dispute with Banks concerning an obligation to perform
a job on overtime (Tr. 147–149), he asked Banks what would
happen if he walked off the job.
Banks particularly denied making any of the above state-
ments to Bauermeister (Tr. 235–236).
For the reasons stated in the section of this decision enti-
tled ‘‘Discussion,’’ I credit Bauermeister’s testimony and
find, in accordance with the allegations of the complaint, that
on or about September 10, 1993, Banks threatened
Bauermeister with discharge because of his engaging in the
union activity of supporting the contemporaneous union or-
ganizing effort at the LaPorte facility. Banks’ admonition
that he’d better do his work well or else he would be dis-
charged violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
To the extent that the complaint (pars. 5(c), (i)) alleges
that Banks unlawfully interrogated Bauermeister, I conclude
that his questioning of Bauermeister concerning Bauer-
meister’s signature on the document was a mere prelude to
and a necessary preliminary to his subsequent unlawful threat
of discharge in the same conversation. I thus find that Bank’s
interrogation of Bauermeister concerning the validity of
Bauermeister’s signature on the card was part of an unlawful
threat and constituted unlawful, coercive interrogation in vio-
lation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
D. Thomas’ Testimony; the Document Supporting the
LaPorte Employees
One night toward the end of the first week in September,
Union Organizer Sautter asked Banks if he could get a letter
signed by Fort Wayne employees supporting the union orga-
nizing campaign in LaPorte (Tr. 71). Thomas, working the
shift commencing at 3 a.m., said he would meet Sautter out-
side the plant at the 7 a.m. breaktime. He met Sautter and
Sautter gave him the letter for employee signatures (Tr. 71).
Thereafter, on the same day, Thomas went to the plant
‘‘smoke pit’’ and told the employees that the Union had
given him a letter supporting the employees at LaPorte who
were having an election (Tr. 143). Employees signed the let-
ter. Thomas then went to the ‘‘break room’’ and told other
employees the same thing and other employees signed the
letter. As the employees on the third shift were leaving,
Thomas gave the letter to a third-shift employee to give to
Sautter (Tr. 72).
Later on the same day, in the afternoon, he coincidentally
was in the restroom with Plant Manager Banks (Tr. 76).
After they exchanged salutations, Banks, who testified that
he did not see the letter until September 9 (when it was
faxed from the LaPorte plant, already bearing all the Fort
Wayne employee signatures), told Thomas before exiting (Tr.
76–77):
I’m going to tell you one thing. Foamex is tired of the
stuff you’re doing around here. And no union is going
to get in this plant and we’re going to put a stop to it.
In the above exchange between Banks and Thomas, I cred-
it Thomas over Banks’ version (Tr. 219–200).8 I note, in
passing, that the evidence shows that this unlawful threat ap-
parently occurred prior to circulation of the letter at the
LaPorte facility. This conversation with Banks occurred be-
fore Banks received a copy of the letter by fax on September
9. Contrary to Banks’ testimony, I conclude in any case that,
whether or not Banks had already seen the letter, he knew
of its circulation and that the threat to Thomas was derived
from the circulation of that document (G.C. Exh. 3) among
Respondent’s unit employees. I note, in addition, that in the
morning of the next day, September 10, after Banks received
the document from LaPorte, in verifying Bauermeister’s sig-
nature, Banks was sufficiently aroused to threaten to dis-
charge Bauermeister whose union sympathies Banks had not
previously suspected.
E. The Testimony of James Barfield
Barfield, a machine operator employed by Respondent for
18 years, testified that he signed the document (G.C. Exh. 3)
to support union organization at LaPorte.9 Within a week of
its circulation at the LaPorte facility, and in any case, after
it had been faxed to the Fort Wayne plant, Banks had a con-
versation with Barfield while Barfield was working his ma-
chine.
Barfield testified that Banks told him that he was dis-
appointed that he had signed the letter and, of all the names
on the letter, he was most disappointed by Barfield’s signa-
ture on the letter. He recalled that Banks did not mention the
Union; that Banks said that Barfield had had ‘‘credibility in
the Company’’ (Tr. 158) and that Barfield had lost some of
that credibility (Tr. 159–160).
To the extent that the complaint alleges any unlawful in-
terrogation or threat by Banks against Barfield, I conclude
that the General Counsel has failed in any such proof. Inso-
far as interrogation goes, I conclude that Banks had a right
to inquire into the genuineness of Barfield’s signature. The
document (G.C. Exh. 3) is unlike a signed union authoriza-
864 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
10 If credited, this testimony might be thought to further corrobo-
rate Thomas’ credited version of the bathroom conversation with
Banks. I do not credit it. Banks, on this record, did not have the
fax copy until the afternoon of its September 9 circulation among
the LaPorte employees. Thus, Williams did not see her signature on
the LaPorte letter on the morning she signed it. She saw it on the
next day, on the morning of September 10 (a day after it was faxed
to Banks). As above noted, when Banks spoke to Thomas in the
bathroom, Banks did not yet have the LaPorte letter. Banks, I find,
spoke to Williams and Bauermeister on September 10.
tion card ostensibly gained in the secrecy of an organizing
campaign. A signature on an organization card is confidential
and essentially none of the employer’s business except as
subsequent litigation might make it relevant. The document
signed by Barfield and other employees was not confidential,
certainly not after it had been circulated at the LaPorte facil-
ity. Banks did not need to inquire of any of the employees
who signed the document whether there was union activity
at the Fort Wayne facility. He already knew that and had al-
ready unlawfully threatened Thomas and Bauermeister. He
knew of the union meeting a month before.
Banks, however, did have an interest in ascertaining the
genuineness of the signatures appearing on the document. If
the signatures were disavowed by the Fort Wayne employ-
ees, Banks would have a clear right to inform the LaPorte
facility to permit the LaPorte supervisors to rebut the infer-
ence of support from the employees at the Fort Wayne facil-
ity. Once Barfield admitted that Banks questioned him after
Banks had received the faxed document from the LaPorte fa-
cility, there can be no question that the document was not
in any way confidential or meant to be kept from Respond-
ent’s eyes. Rather, the document, with signatures, had al-
ready been circulated at LaPorte and thus had become union
campaign material at LaPorte. I conclude that Banks had a
legitimate interest in ascertaining the genuineness of the Fort
Wayne employees’ signatures. Thus, I conclude that in the
absence of any other elements of coercion or restraint,
Bank’s question to Barfield was not coercive interrogation.
Nor is there any element of coercion in Banks expressing
to Barfield his disappointment in Barfield supporting the
Union and his assertion that Barfield had lost ‘‘credibility.’’
The loss of credibility, I conclude, does not amount to an as-
sertion of Barfield’s disloyalty to Respondent or to Banks.
Banks’ disappointment and Barfield’s alleged loss of credi-
bility in Banks’ eyes is not a statement so coercive as to
make the entire inquiry a warning or coercive interrogation
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Oklahoma Installa-
tion Co., 309 NLRB 776 (1992). I therefore recommend that
any alleged unlawful threat or coercive interrogation relating
to the conversation between Banks and Barfield be dismissed
as unproven.
To the extent that, in a conversation in August 1993, with-
in a day or so after the August meeting of employees in
Thomas’ house regarding possible interest in and support of
the Union, Thomas had a conversation with Banks concern-
ing a dispute over vacation days wherein Banks allegedly
said that the ‘‘tide that rolls in rolls out’’ (Tr. 69), I conclude
that the statement is too ambiguous to constitute restraint or
coercion within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The fact that Thomas believed that Banks was suggesting
that Thomas and the Union might have the upper hand at the
present time but thereafter the Respondent would have the
upper hand, that is a matter of speculation and conjecture. In
fact, Banks said no such thing. All he said was that the tide
that rolls in rolls out. There is insufficient proof that this
meant the Union. And even if it did, it would seem to mean
that union support among the employees is ephemeral. I rec-
ommend that to the extent that Banks made such a statement,
it be found not in violation of Section 8(a)(1), whether inter-
rogation, threat, promise, or otherwise.
F. The Testimony of Ruby J. Williams
Williams, a witness called by Respondent, has been em-
ployed by Respondent for 17 years and became a machinist
in February or March 1993, after 16 years of employment
(Tr. 207). She testified that when Thomas gave her the
LaPorte document (G.C. Exh. 3) he said ‘‘something’’ about
a union. Williams said she paid no attention to it and signed
it (Tr. 198) without realizing that it was being sent to the
LaPorte facility (Tr. 199).
She testified that on the same morning that she signed it,10
Banks approached her with regard to the document that she
signed. She said he asked her whether it was her signature
and when she affirmed that it was, he said: ‘‘Is this the an-
swer’’ (Tr. 199). She said: ‘‘I don’t know Bill . . . we both
are aware that maybe there are some changes that need to
be made’’ (Tr. 200). When Banks repeated ‘‘is this the
way,’’ Williams said: ‘‘I’m not sure’’ and Banks walked
away.
In any event, she thereafter angrily asked Thomas: ‘‘What
the hell was that you had me sign?’’ (Tr. 203). Thomas told
her that he thought she knew what she had signed. Williams
said that she had not really paid attention and that she re-
called only that Thomas had said something about the Union
and she signed it (Tr. 203). She then told Thomas that she
wanted her union authorization card returned (Tr. 204).
When Thomas told her that he had given it to the union
agent that morning, she asked how to get in touch with the
union agent and get her card back. She testified that she told
Thomas that she had not really been interested in the Union
and had signed the union authorization card as a matter of
friendship for Thomas. Williams recalled that Thomas said to
her: ‘‘Oh, he’s threatened you, too? . . . he’s been threaten-
ing a lot of people’’ (Tr. 205–206). Williams denied that
Banks had threatened her (Tr. 206).
Williams testified that her request for the return of her
card was not a result of anything that Banks said. In re-
sponse to the question of why she asked for the return of her
card, she testified: ‘‘I suppose to be perfectly honest because
I never wanted to give it in [to the union] the first place’’
(Tr. 211). She admitted, on cross-examination, that she had
the card in her possession longer than 2 weeks prior to the
time that she signed the letter in support of the LaPorte em-
ployees’ organization.
Discussion and Conclusions
This case is determined essentially on the credibility of the
witnesses: particularly their demeanor as they testified, with
due regard to the interest of the witnesses, their spontaneity,
perceptiveness, and the reasonableness of their testimony in
the context of the events. In this regard, I have taken into
account the common confusion of witnesses with regard to
865FOAMEX
11 While I had little trouble in crediting Bauermiester, I was con-
cerned by the General Counsel’s unexplained failure to corroborate
Thomas’ testimony on being interrogated in August by Banks con-
curring Thomas holding a union meeting. Immediately on Banks’
leaving the area, employee Cindy Collins asked what the conversa-
tion was about and Thomas told her. Collins was not produced.
Similarly, but of lesser importance was the General Counsel’s failure
to corroborate Thomas’ testimony on ‘‘the tide rolls in’’ where
Thomas allegedly recounted this Banks statement shortly afterwards
to Jim Minnick and Mack Daniels.
dates, days, and perhaps even sequence of occurrences. The
crucial question is not measuring credibility by virtue of
merely an ostensible clear recollection of dates and days, but
an evaluation, ultimately, of the credibility and veracity of a
particular witness. The Board, with court approval, has taken
into account, in establishing ultimate veracity, the inability of
a truthful witness to remember particular dates, days, or even
sequence of events. See Plumbers Local 195 (Stone & Web-
ster Engineering Corp.), 240 NLRB 504 (1979), enfd. 606
F.2d 320 (5th Cir. 1979).
As an essential preliminary matter, my observation of the
demeanor of the two principal adversary witnesses, Thomas
and Banks, left little room for establishing the veracity of
one over the other. While Thomas’ testimony was somewhat
confusing in terms of dates and sequence, I do not lay that
problem solely at his feet. Banks, without question, was a
forceful, clear, intelligent, and persuasive witness. I have
nevertheless substantially discredited Banks and credited
Thomas’ testimony regarding at least two unlawful threats by
Banks, violating Section 8(a)(1), relating to Thomas’ role as
the principal union activist and supporter in the Fort Wayne
facility. I did so on the following grounds:
(1) The most particular weight in the balance establishing
Thomas’ credibility and veracity over that of Banks was my
observation and estimation of the veracity of Harold
Bauermeister. I was impressed by Bauermeister’s straight-
forwardness which convinced me that he was without guile
in the giving of his testimony. His direct testimony struck me
as clearly believable and his testimony on cross-examination
was not shaken. Respondent’s witnesses did not identify him
as a union advocate. If I were to credit Bauermeister, I
would necessarily discredit Banks’ denial that he threatened
Bauermeister. Bauermeister credibly recounted his conversa-
tion when Banks tapped him on the shoulder, Banks first es-
tablishing that Bauermeister signed the LaPorte letter, then
admonishing that he’d better be careful the way he did his
work or else he would be fired. I credit Bauermeister.
(2) While my crediting Bauermeister, necessarily discredit-
ing Banks’ denial, does not necessarily require that I credit
Thomas, I have nevertheless concluded that Thomas basically
was telling the truth and that Banks’ otherwise impressive
testimony denying these interrogations and threats was un-
true. I reach this conclusion after weighing both Banks’ and
Thomas’ interests in the matter. I conclude that Banks, newly
promoted as plant manager, was particularly interested in
seeing to it that, whatever the outcome of the voting in the
LaPorte facility, he would not suffer the fate of having his
Fort Wayne plant organized by the Union. Although he may
ordinarily be a restrained and careful person with regard to
labor relations, I regard his discovery of Fort Wayne employ-
ees circulating and then signing a document in support of
LaPorte employees was sufficiently disturbing so that Banks
was no longer contained within the bounds of lawful opposi-
tion to the Fort Wayne employees’ organizational effort. He
stepped over into coercive and restraining statements in vio-
lation of Section 8(a)(1) to both Bauermeister and Thomas
including unlawful interrogation of Bauermeister.11
(3) Then there is the testimony of Ruby J. Williams. As
I observed Williams, I concluded that, of all the witnesses,
she seemed to me to be the most perceptive and knowledge-
able. While it is possible that, as she testified, she signed her
union card out of mere friendship with Thomas, I do not
credit her testimony that she did not know that she was sign-
ing the LaPorte document to show support for the organiza-
tional effort of the LaPorte facility employees. This would be
true whether or not Thomas explained to her what the func-
tion of the letter was. He testified that he explained it to em-
ployees both in the smoking pit and in the breakroom.
Thomas’ testimony is credited. In any event, Ruby Williams
knew what she was signing.
Of greater consequence is that although she denied that
Banks threatened her when he questioned her signature ap-
pearing on the LaPorte document, I do not accept the truth-
fulness of her testimony that Banks’ questioning had nothing
to do with her request for the recapture of her signed card.
While I do not make a finding that any of Banks’ question-
ing of Williams, on the present record, constitutes a violation
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I find that Williams’ further
testimony is untruthful. I was particularly dissatisfied with
her explanation that although Banks did not threaten her, she
angrily confronted Thomas on the LaPorte document and an-
grily demanded return of her union card. If Banks’ inquiry
on her signature was so bland, there was no explanation for
her anger at Thomas.
In addition, her testimony (Tr. 211) was that she requested
the return of her authorization card because: ‘‘I suppose to
be perfectly honest because I never wanted to give it [to the
union] in the first place.’’ She testified that she had the card
more than 2 weeks before she signed it. It seems to me that
2 weeks would give her sufficient time to reflect on the wis-
dom of signing and submitting the card regardless whether
friendship for Thomas was also motive to support the Union.
Even if pure friendship was the exclusive motive for submit-
ting the card to the union agent, I find that her testimony,
that she never wanted to submit it to the Union, to be an at-
tempt to show lukewarm support for the Union at all times.
An employee with Williams’ intelligence and common sense
who signs a union authorization card and then signs a docu-
ment supporting union activities of coemployees in a distant
facility cannot be heard reasonably to say that she really did
not want to support the Union in the first place. Such testi-
mony, I believe, tends to establish the vehemence of Banks’
questioning of Williams and other employees. It leads me to
conclude that on some occasions, perhaps not with Williams
or Barfield, Banks stepped over the line and made a threat
to Bauermeister and generally threatened Thomas as the
leader of the Fort Wayne union movement.
(4) I was impressed by Williams’ testimony (Tr. 205–206)
that when she told Thomas that she wanted the return of her
signed union authorization card, he asked her: ‘‘Oh, [Banks]
threatened you, too? . . . He’s been threatening a lot of peo-
ple.’’ While Williams denied being threatened by Banks, I
866 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
12 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
13 If 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 Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order
of the National Labor Relations Board.’’
was impressed by her recollection of Thomas’ apparently
spontaneous response asserting Banks’ threats to employees.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, Foamex, a Limited Partnership, is a
Delaware limited partnership with the general partner of 21
Foam Co., Inc., and is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union, United Paperworkers International Union,
AFL–CIO, has been and is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act at all material times.
3. On or about early August and September 9, 1993, Re-
spondent, by its plant manager, William Banks, by its plant
superintendent, Bruce Boestar, and its maintenance super-
visor, Kurt Kleinrichert, coercively interrogated employees
with regard to their membership in, sympathy for, and sup-
port of the Union and because of their sympathy for and sup-
port of the lawful organizational effort of employees at Re-
spondent’s LaPorte, Indiana facility in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. In or about September 8 and 9, 1993, Respondent, by
its plant manager, William Banks, in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act unlawfully threatened employees with dis-
charge because of their membership in, sympathy for, and
support of the Union and the lawful organizational effort of
employees at Respondent’s LaPorte, Indiana facility.
5. In or about August 1993, Respondent, by Plant Manager
Banks, created the impression of unlawful surveillance of its
employees’ union activities, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
6. In or about September 9, 1993, Respondent, by its plant
manager, William Banks, by telling employees that no union
was going to get into the plant and that Respondent was
going to put a stop to it, warned its employees that it would
be futile for them to select a union as their bargaining rep-
resentative, all in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as
alleged.
7. Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) or any other
section of the Act except as found above.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action including the posting of
the notice in order to effectuate the policies of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended12
ORDER
The Respondent, Foamex, a Limited Partnership, with its
general partner being 21 Foam Co., Inc., Fort Wayne, Indi-
ana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Unlawfully threatening employees with discharge and
other reprisals, creating the impression of unlawful surveil-
lance of their lawful union activities, coercively interrogating
them concerning their membership in, support of, and sym-
pathy for the Union or any other labor organization; or tell-
ing them that it would be futile for them to select the Union,
or any other labor organization, as their collective-bargaining
representative.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Post at its facility in Fort Wayne, Indiana, copies of
the attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’13 Copies of the no-
tices, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
25, after being duly signed by Respondent, shall be posted
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60
consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that
the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us
to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees con-
cerning their membership in, sympathy for, or activities on
behalf of United Paperworkers International Union, AFL–
CIO, or any other labor organization, and WE WILL NOT un-
lawfully threaten them with discharge or other reprisals be-
cause of their union or other protected concerted activities or
tell them that it will be futile for them to select a labor orga-
nization as their collective-bargaining representative or create
the impression of unlawful surveillance of their union or
other protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
FOAMEX, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP