Hammond & Irving, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 9, 1965

154 N.L.R.B. 1071 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

HAMMOND & IRVING, INCORPORATED 1071
tracts, we conclude that the issues raised here are not properly to be
resolved at this time in this type of proceeding. Accordingly, we shall
dismiss the petition .5
[The Board denied the petition to clarify the unit.]
5 At the hearing, the Union made a motion requesting the Board not to exercise jurisdic-
tion in this case because of the pendency of a proceeding in the U.S. Federal District
Court for Maine to determine the contractual rights of the parties. In view of our dis-
position of this case , we deem it unnecessary to rule on this motion.
Hammond & Irving, Incorporated and United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 3-CA-2321. September 9, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 21, 1965, Trial Examiner John H. Eadie issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. He also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain
other alleged unfair labor practices. Thereafter, the General Counsel
filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision with a supporting
brief and an addendum thereto, and the Respondent filed cross-excep-
tions with a supporting brief.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
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 entire rec-
ord in this case, including the Trial Examiner's Decision, the excep-
tions and cross-exceptions, and the briefs and the addendum, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner to the extent consistent herewith.
As more fully set forth by the Trial Examiner, on December 10, 1963,
the Union, which had secured signed authorization cards from a
majority of the 110 employees then in the appropriate unit, asked the
Respondent for recognition as exclusive bargaining representative.
1 The Respondent has requested oral argument . This request is hereby denied be-
cause the record , exceptions and cross - exceptions , and briefs and the addendum, adequately
present the issues and positions of the parties.
154 NLRB No. 84.
1072 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On December 11, having failed to receive an affirmative response to its
request, the Union filed a petition for an election. On January 9,
1964,2 the Regional Director issued a Decision directing an election,
which was thereafter scheduled for January 22. During the period
from January 13 until shortly before the election, Edward Gallagher,
the Respondent's executive vice president, or his son, Robert, its vice
president, spoke to six employees about a union meeting and the forth-
coming election. Thus, on January 13, three employees were ques-
tioned with regard to their attendance and that of four other employ-
ees at the Union meeting which had been held the preceding evening.
One of these employees was also questioned concerning his union sen-
timents and was asked to vote against the Union. Between January 17
and shortly before the election of January 22, three other employees
were questioned about how they or the other employees in the unit were
going to vote and were asked to vote against the Union.
The Trial Examiner found that these conversations created impres-
sions of surveillance and constituted unlawful interrogation of employ-
ees which violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. We agree. The Trial
Examiner further concluded that such conduct indicated that the
Respondent was not acting in good faith when it insisted upon an elec-
tion and refused to bargain with the Union, and that if the Union had
possessed a valid majority of cards, a violation of Section 8(a) (5) of
the Act would have been established. However, he held that all the
cards were invalid to prove majority status.
The General Counsel excepts to the Trial Examiner's findings con-
cerning the validity of the cards; and the Respondent excepts, inter
alia, to the conclusion that the conduct herein would have been grounds
for finding an unlawful refusal to bargain. The Respondent contends
that, even assuming, arguendo, that its conversations with the employ-
ees were unlawful, the evidence does not sustain the conclusion that the
Respondent was engaging in a course of conduct calculated to under-
mine the Union's majority; that the effect of the Trial Examiner's
rationale is to establish a per se rule that the presence of any unfair
labor practices requires a finding of bad faith; that a finding concern-
ing motive should be based on an examination of all the facts ; and that
the 8(a) (5) allegation of the complaint should have been dismissed
for these reasons. We agree with the Respondent's position. There-
fore, we have not considered the General Counsel's exceptions with
regard to the cards and do not adopt or pass upon the Trial Examiner's
findings that the cards were invalid. For, we are persuaded that, even
assuming that the Union was in possession of valid cards signed by a
majority of the employees, no unlawful refusal to bargain has been
established in the circumstances here.
Unless otherwise specified, all subsequent dates refer to 1964.
HAMMOND & IRVING, INCORPORATED 1073
The Board has long held that an employer may insist upon a Board
election as proof of a union's majority if it has a reasonable basis for
a bona fide doubt as to the union's representative status in an appropri-
ate unit. If, however, the employer has no such good-faith doubt, but
refuses to bargain with the majority representative of its employees
because it rejects the collective-bargaining principle or desires to gain
time within which to undermine the union and dissipate its majority,
such conduct constitutes a violation of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act.3
In determining whether the employer's action was taken to achieve
either of the said invalid purposes, the Board considers all the sur-
rounding circumstances as well as direct evidence of motivation.
Absent such direct evidence, where extensive violations of the Act
accompany the refusal to grant recognition, they evidence the employ-
er's unlawful motive and an inference of bad faith is justified. Here,
however, the Respondent engaged in conversations with 6 employees
out of a unit of 110 or 111. This interrogation, while unlawful, was
not so flagrant that it must necessarily have had the object of destroy-
ing the Union's majority status. While unfair labor practices com-
mitted at or about the time of an employer's refusal to bargain often
demonstrates the bad faith of the respondent's position,4 not every act
of misconduct necessarily vitiates the respondent's good faith.5 For,
there are some situations in which the violations of the Act are not
truly inconsistent with a good-faith doubt that the union represents a
majority of the employees. Whether the conduct involved reflects on
the good faith of the employer, requires an evaluation of the facts of
each case. In the instant case, we agree with the Trial Examiner's
conclusion that the General Counsel has not sustained the burden of
establishing that the Respondent's refusal to bargain was violative of
Section 8 (a) (5). Accordingly, that allegation of the complaint is
hereby dismissed.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and orders that
the Respondent, Hammond & Irving, Incorporated, Auburn, New
York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Trial Examiner 's Recommended Order.
$ Joy Silk Mills, Inc., 85 NLRB 1263, enfd. as modified on other grounds 185 F. 2d 732
(C.A.D.C.), cert . denied 341 U.S. 914.
4 Joy Silk Mi118 , Inc., supra.
c See, e .g.,Cosmodyne Manufacturing Company, 150 NLRB 96 , at footnote 29 of the
Trial Examiner ' s Decision therein ( adopted by the Board without comment).
206-446-----c6---vol. 151-69
1074 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding was held before Trial Examiner John H. Eadie in Auburn, New
York, on July 27, 28, and 29, 1964, on the complaint of the General Counsel and the
answer of Hammond & Irving, Incorporated, herein called the Respondent.) The
issue litigated was whether the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the
Act. The General Counsel and the Respondent filed briefs after the hearing. The
parties also filed with the Trial Examiner a stipulation to the effect that General
Counsel's Exhibit No. 7 was mistakenly marked and referred to in the record as
General Counsel's Exhibit No. 7a through 7cccc, and that said exhibit should have
been marked and referred to as General Counsel's Exhibit No. 7a through 7rrrr.
The parties jointly moved that the record be corrected accordingly. The motion is
hereby granted and the stipulation and motion is received into evidence as Trial
Examiner 's Exhibit No. 1.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is a New York corporation with its principal office and place of
business in Auburn, New York. It is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribu-
tion of flat die steel forgings and related products.
During the year preceding the date of the complaint herein, the Respondent, in
the course and conduct of its business operations, manufactured, sold, and distributed
at its Auburn plant products valued in excess of $100,000, of which products valued
in excess of $50,000 were shipped from said plant directly to States of the United
States other than the State of New York. The complaint alleges, the Respondent's
amended answer admits, and I find that the Respondent is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO, herein called the Union , is a labor
organization which admits to membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background, sequence of events
On or about November 27, 1963, Richard Baldwin, a staff representative of the
Union, received a telephone call from Charles Walker, an employee of the Respond-
ent. Walker told him that he had been delegated by other employees to obtain
information about the Union. As a result of this conversation, Baldwin visited at
his home on December 3, and gave him some union cards.
On December 9, Walker and some other employees met with Baldwin at the home
of Francis McCandrew. At this meeting 70 union cards which had been signed by
employees were turned over to Baldwin.
On December 10, Baldwin called Edward Gallager, the Respondent's executive
vice-president. The conversation was as follows:
Baldwin: Mr. Gallager, I am Mr. Baldwin from the Steelworkers' Union,
one of the Staff Representatives.
Gallager: Where are you located?
Baldwin: I am calling from Syracuse, New York. I don't know whether you
are aware of it but we have an organizing campaign going on at your plant and
now have a substantial number of your employees signed. We would like to
make a request that you recognize our Union and see if we can arrange a meeting.
Gallager: I do not know much about those proceedings. I am not too
familiar with it. I would have to be guided by what you say.
Baldwin: Would you like to have us come over and talk with you?
Gallager: Is that the procedure and when you say "us", who do you mean?
Baldwin: I mean myself with another representative. We would be prepared
to demonstrate that we are not kidding you. We are prepared to give you proof
of what we say.
'The charge was filed and served on the Respondent on April 7, 1964. The complaint
Issued on May 27, 1964.
HAMMOND & IRVING, INCORPORATED 1075
Gallager: Of course, but I am not the only one that has anything to say.
I would like to get in touch with many of my cohorts here and see what we want
to do.
Baldwin: That's okay. Why don't you do that and call us back. You can
get us at GR 5-3158, United Steelworkers in Syracuse. Ask for Mr. Baldwin
or Mr. Litz.
Gallager: Where are you located?
Baldwin: 104 Magnolia Street.
Gallager: O.K.
Gallager called Baldwin that same day. The following conversation took place: 2
Gallager: This is Ed Gallager.
Baldwin: How are you?
Gallager: Not too bad. I cannot meet with you until the early part of next
week. I will be away this week. It will be the 16th or 17th, I do not know which
date at the moment.
Baldwin: Look, Mr. Gallager, I will be real honest with you. There are
several ways this could be accomplished. We are prepared to give you proof
that we do represent a substantial majority and there are several ways we could
do it, by checking cards, the applications, or we could do it by an election
through the National Labor Relations Board.
Gallager: I will want to talk about all this with you.
Baldwin: You will perhaps want to get some advice on this. You will prob-
ably wind up and tell us we will have to have an election through the National
Labor Relations Board.
Gallager: We are going to file a petition today with the Board and they will
investigate but we don't mean that we would necessarily have to go through
with an election. We can work out some arrangement. However, we think it
would be better that we file the petition.
• s s s * • s
Gallager: Just as you say.
Baldwin: Don't let that bother you. After we hear from the Board, we will
sit down and meet with you and work things out. It would be much better if
we could meet with you some time next week and we could talk with you.
Gallager: Yes, I; will be back on Sunday. I will give you a call on next
Monday.
Baldwin: Do that. We will file a petition and if it is found necessary, we
will withdraw it.
Gallager: O.K.
On December 10, Baldwin sent the following letter to Gallager:
This letter will confirm our telephone conversation of Tuesd-y, December 10,
1963, during which a request for recognition was made by .,ar Union.
Failing to obtain an affirmative answer, we are this day filing a Petition with
the National Labor Relations Board to proceed under its proper authority.
On December 11, the Union filed with the Board a petition for certification for a
unit including "all maintenance and production workers" and excluding "office and
clerical workers, supervisors as defined under the Act." a
On or before December 13, nine more employees signed union cards. Walker
forwarded these to Baldwin through the mail.
A hearing was held by the Board in the representation matter on December 30,
1963. At that hearing the Respondent raised no issues and stipulated to the following:
It is stipulated that on December 10, 1963, the Petitioner wrote the Employer
requesting bargaining.... And that the Employer will not recognize the Union
until matters are resolved by the National Labor Relations Board....
On January 9, 1964, the Regional Director issued a Decision and Direction of
Election. The Board conducted an election among the Respondent's employees on
January 22, 1964. Of approximately 111 eligible voters, 44 cast votes for and 65
cast votes against the Union. On January 29, the Union filed timely objections to
conduct affecting the results of the election. On March 18, 1964, the Regional
Director issued a "Supplemental Decision and Direction of. Second Election," in
which he sustained one of the Union's objections, set the election aside and directed
a new election.
g The conversations as found herein are in accordance with a transcription made at
the time by Baldwin's secretary. Baldwin testified substantially to the same effect.
8 Case No. 3-RC-3298.
1076 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Union sent a letter dated April 1, 1964, to the Respondent which reads in
part as follows:
We hereby renew our request, which was first made on December 10, 1963,
that your Corporation, through its properly designated representatives, recognize
our Union. for the purpose of collective bargaining, on behalf of the Corpora-
tion's employees at its plant in Auburn, New York.
Failing to obtain an affirmative answer on or before April 6, 1964, we will,
on that date, file charges with the National Labor Relations Board (8(a)(5)-
Refusal to Bargain).
On May 20 the Union requested permission to withdraw its petition. By order
dated May 27, 1964, the Regional Director approved the withdrawal. As stated
above, the Union filed the charge in the instant proceeding on April 7, 1964.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
On January 12, 1964, the Union held a meeting for the Respondent's employees at
the "Russian Club" in Auburn. Employees Ralph Sherman, Edward Sherman, son
of Ralph Sherman, and Alex Fletcher attended the meeting together. As they entered
the Club, they were immediately followed by employees Charles Walker and Sid
Wilkerson. At or about 9 a.m. on January 13, Robert Gallager, a son of Edward
Gallager and vice president of the Respondent, spoke to Ralph Sherman. He asked
Sherman, "you went to the union meeting yesterday?" When Sherman admitted
that he had attended the meeting, Gallager said, "you went with Sid and Charlie
Walker and Alex Fletcher and your son." Sherman replied, "No. Charlie Walker
and Sid didn't go with us."
On the same day about 10 a.m. Edward Gallager spoke to employee Joseph
Mendzef, who also had attended the union meeting. Gallager said, "did you go to
the meeting yesterday?" Mendzef replied, "No, my wife wouldn't let me go."
Gallager then asked him how he "stood with the Union." When Mendzef did not
answer. Gallager said, "Well, how about throwing a favor for me, which is a no
vote. Do me a favor." Mendzef replied, "Sure."
Edward Gallager also spoke to Fletcher on January 13. He told Fletcher that he
had heard that he had attended the union meeting. When Fletcher admitted that he
was present, Gallager asked him if he had drunk "any beer down there." Fletcher
replied, "No."
It is found that the above interrogation by Edward and Robert Gallager was
violative of the Act. It is also found that the remarks of Robert and Edward
Gallager to Sherman and Fletcher created the impression of surveillance and that
such conduct was violative of the Act.
David Jones was employed by the Respondent from about September 1963 until
about April 27, 1964. Shortly before the election he took a physical examination
for the military service. The day after the examination he had a conversation with
Robert Gallager. Gallager asked him how he had "made out" on the examination.
Jones replied, "pretty good, as far as I know." Gallager then asked him if he knew
how long he would continue to work for the Respondent. When Jones answered
that he did not know "exactly," Gallager said, "Well, how about a no vote, Dave?"
Jones replied, "I don't know." Gallager then asked his opinion on "how the men in
the shop were going to vote." Jones said that he did not "know anything about that
either."
It is found that Gallager's interrogation concerning the vote of Jones and of other
employees constitutes interference, restraint, and coercion.
On or about January 17, Edward Gallager had a conversation with employee
Frederick Panes. Gallager said, "I don't know you very well.. . What do you
think about the election?" Panes replied, "I haven't gave [sic] it much thought."
Gallager then said, "I would appreciate it if you would vote no." Panes did not
answer.
It is found that Gallager's interrogation of Panes was violative of the Act.
On January 20 Robert Gallager asked employee Boyce Dudley "which way" he
was going to vote. When Dudley replied that he did not know, Gallager said, "that
sounded like a yes vote." 4
It is found that Gallager's interrogation of Dudley was violative of the Act.
On March 12, 1964, the Respondent sent a letter to each employee. In the letter
the Respondent stated in part:
There is no secret about the fact that we were pleased with the results of the
election. We were pleased for you primarily because it meant that we could,
* Dudley testified credibly to the above. Gallager denied that he asked Dudley how he
was going to vote. His denial is not credited.
HAMMOND & IRVING, INCORPORATED 1077
in the future, adjust whatever may be our problems by sitting down on a face-
to-face basis without an outside agent between us.
We have always said very frankly that in any plant there are beefs and gripes,
and Hammond & Irving is no exception. We have been considering adjustments
in our fringe benefits and our wages. We have been studying area practices
and our rate structure. All this has been done to make Hammond & Irving a
better place to work. Wage increases and increases in fringe benefits will be
made.
We would have resolved all of these matters before this but so long as the
Steelworkers continue to harass us and you, the claim is made that our
employees were brainwashed, our hands are tied. If the certification comes down
we can be more specific; if the Union's objections are sustained, we must have
further delay until the results of a second election; and at that time we can
determine the method by which adjustments in the wages and fringe benefits
can be made.
I find that by making promises of benefit to employees during the pendency of a
representation proceeding the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
C. The alleged refusal to bargain
The Respondent admits the appropriateness of the unit alleged in the complaint.
This is the same unit set forth in the Union's petition and found appropriate by the
Regional Director in his Decision and Direction of Election. The evidence shows
that there were 110 employees in this unit; and that as of December 9, 1963, 70
employees had signed authorization cards.
The evidence further reveals that on December 10, 1963, the Union, both during
telephonic conversations with Edward Gallager and by its letter to him, notified
the Respondent that it represented "a substantial majority" of the employees and
was prepared to prove its claimed majority "by checking cards," and requested recog-
nition as the bargaining agent of the employees. In his talks with Gallager, Baldwin
made it clear that the Union was going to file a petition with the Board only as a
last resort, and that the petition would be withdrawn if the Respondent would accord
recognition and meet with the Union. Gallager at the time did not question the
Union's claimed majority. Although he indicated that he would be willing to meet
with the Union at a later date, it does not appear that he thereafter contacted the
Union. That the Respondent's silence was tantamount to a refusal of the Union's
request for recognition is shown by the stipulation entered into by the Respondent
at the hearing in the representation matter. It stipulated that it would not recognize
the Union until the question (of majority) was resolved by the Board.
The record indicates that the Respondent was not acting in good faith in insisting
upon an election, and that it engaged in a course of conduct calculated to undermine
the Union's majority. As found above, it interrogated employees and created the
impression of surveillance. This, in brief, constitutes the General Counsel's prima
facie case. Standing alone, it would appear that the Respondent had engaged in an
illegal refusal to bargain.5
In its brief the Respondent contends that the union cards were "tainted" and
invalid for the purposes of determining a union majority. In support of this con-
tention, the Respondent produced seven witnesses who testified to the effect that
when solicited to sign cards they were told that the purpose was to get a "majority"
so that an election could be held, one witness who testified that he was told that it
would cost him $100 to join the union after it got in the plant and that the Respond-
ent would have to discharge him if he did not join because there was going to be a
"closed shop," and another witness who testified that he was told that he would lose
his job if he did not join the Union after it got in the plant.6
5lrving Air Chute Company, Inc., Marathon Division, 149 NLRB 527.
6 One of the above witnesses testified that he read the card before signing it, and four
testified that they did not sign cards. The testimony of Walker, a leader in soliciting,
indicates that he told employees that the purpose of the cards was for an election.
Concerning his conversation with employees when soliciting them to sign cards, Walker
was questioned and testified as follows:
Q. (By Mr. Paicr). It was to enable you to get an election to see if it wants the
Union ?
A. Yes.
Q. That was your understanding, isn't that right?
A. Well, that isn't all the card says.
Q. No, I appreciate that.
A. Yes, Yes. It was more or less of an election ; that is what it was about.
1078 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The General Counsel had the burden of proving the majority. In view of the
above evidence, I find that the union authorization cards, urged by the General
Counsel as establishing such majority status, were unreliable for this purpose? Since
it even appears from the testimony of the General Counsel's chief witness on this
question that employees were told that the purpose of the cards was for an election,
I do not believe it can reasonably be said that the employees, by their act of signing
authorizations, thereby clearly manifested an intention to designate the Union as
their bargaining representative. Accordingly, since the General Counsel has failed
to prove the majority status of the Union, I do not find that the Respondent violated
Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
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. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Respondent's refusal to bargain was not violative of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon
the entire record in the case, I recommend that Respondent, Hammond & Irving,
Incorporated, Auburn, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
be ordered to:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating its employees concerning their union sympathies and activities
or concerning their vote in an election conducted by the Board.
(b) Engaging in or creating the impression of surveillance of meetings held by
the Union, or by any other labor organization.
(c) Offering, promising, or granting to its employees economic and other benefits
or improvements in their terms and conditions of employment if they refrain from
supporting the Union, or any other labor organization, or during the pendency of a
representation matter before the Board.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing their employees
in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join
or assist the above-named labor organization or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and 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, except to the extent
that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
7 Englewood Lumber Company, 130 NLRB 394; I. Posner, Inc., et at ., 133 NLRB 1573.
HAMMOND & IRVING, INCORPORATED 1079
(a) Post at its plant in Auburn, New York, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 8 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 3, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent or its authorized repre-
sentatives, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps it has taken to comply herewith.9
8In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" In the notice . In the further event that the Board's Order be 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".
'In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director , in writing, within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act , as amended , we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union sympathies
and activities or concerning their vote in an election conducted by the Board.
WE WILL NOT engage in or create the impression of surveillance of meetings
held by United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, or by any other labor
organization.
WE WILL NOT offer, promise , or grant to our employees economic and other
benefits or improvements in their terms and conditions of employment if they
refrain from supporting the above union , or any other labor organization, or
during the pendency of a representation matter before the Board.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form labor
organizations , to join or assist United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing , to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining or mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all such
activities , except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as
authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
All our employees are free to become, remain , or refrain from becoming or
remaining members of any labor organization except to the extent that this right
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
HAMMOND & IRVING, INCORPORATED,
Employer.
Dated- ------------------ By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
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, Fourth
Floor, The 120 Building , 120 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo , New York, Telephone No.
472-2215, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.