Hasbro Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 14, 1981

254 N.L.R.B. 587 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

HASBRO INDUSTRIES, INC.
Hasbro Industries, Inc. and Local 26-L, Graphic
Arts International Union, AFL-CIO. Cases 1-
CA-14134 and 1-CA-15803
January 14, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
PENELLO AND TRUESDALE
On August 22, 1980, Administrative Law Judge
John C. Miller issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent and the Gener-
al Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs,'
and Respondent filed an answering brief to the
General Counsel's exceptions. The Charging Party
filed cross-exceptions and a brief supporting its
cross-exceptions and answering Respondent's ex-
ceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings,2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge, as modified herein, and to adopt his recom-
mended Order.
The Administrative Law Judge found, and we
agree, that the Union had secured a majority of au-
thorization cards from unit employees prior to its
demand for recognition on January 24, 1977. 3 We
also agree with the Administrative Law Judge that
Respondent's unlawful conduct warrants the issu-
ance of a remedial bargaining order, but only for
the following reasons.
Respondent, having learned that a representation
election among its printing employees was immi-
nent, embarked upon a course of conduct purpose-
fully designed to undermine the Union's majority
status, one which did not end with the election. On
Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the
record, exceptions, and briefs adequately present the issues and the posi-
tions of the parties.
2 Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi-
bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con-
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951) We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
In fn. 10 of his Decision, the Administrative Law Judge incorrectly
found that Arthur Huard apparently declined recall on March 27, 1978.
The record indicates that Huard accepted recall, but only worked for a
short time thereafter
In sec. B.,.l(a), of his Decision, the Administrative Law Judge inad-
vertently referred to the time frame of the department manager's payroll
review as on or about January 20, 1977, whereas the record indicates the
date to be January 10 The error is hereby corrected.
3 All dates herein are in 1977. unless other\ise indicated
November 28, 1 week after it received notice of
the election, Respondent granted wage increases to
3 of the 15 unit employees. According to Respon-
dent's records, two of these increases were granted
prematurely, while the third was overdue. Shortly
thereafter, on December 5 and 12, Respondent sent
two letters to the homes of unit employees which,
in effect, equated selection of the Union with the
loss of existing benefits. On December 13, 3 days
before the election, two of the Company's vice
presidents, Hugh Maxwell and Peter Fornal, took
employee Antonio Pasadas aside to question him
concerning why he wanted the Union. The day
before the election, Department Manager Sidney
Feldman told employee Jean Beaucage that Re-
spondent would never let another union in-they
would farm out the work or, barring that, they
would close down the printing department for a
year and take a business loss and reopen after a
year. On December 16, immediately following the
election, Feldman informed employee Mark Stan-
ley that they knew how he had voted, but they
would not hold it against him because he was not
among the three they were out to get. He also told
employees Albino Enes, Antonio Pasadas, and
Arthur Moreira they were lucky the Union did not
win, since the department would have been closed
if it had. On January 1, 1978, while objections to
the election were pending, unit employees received
annual wage increases far eclipsing those granted in
previous years, and substantially higher than those
granted to similarly situated hourly paid employees
outside the unit. TheAdministrative Law Judge
found that each of the foregoing acts violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act. We agree.
In the past, the Board has found that unlawfully
granting substantial wage increases to a high per-
centage of unit employees is sufficient, by itself, to
render it unlikely that a fair and free election can
be held.4 In the instant case, Respondent, as part of
an overall design to thwart the free will of its 15
unit employees, not only granted substantial wage
increases to the entire unit, but also made it clear
to 4 employees that selecting the Union would
mean closing the department; distributed letters to
each employee's home advising that a union victo-
ry would in essence be tantamount to the sacrifice
of existing benefits; gave I employee the impres-
sion that his union activities were under surveil-
lance; and subjected another employee to interro-
gation concerning his union sentiments. According-
ly, under the principles set forth in N.L.R.B. v.
Gissel Packing Co., Inc., 395 U.S. 575, 614-615
4 Idaho Candv Company, 218 NlRH 352 (1975). C & G Electric Inc.,
180 NIRI 427 (1969)
254 NLRB No. 70
587
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(1969), we find it unlikely that traditional remedies
would be effective in overcoming the lingering co-
ercive effects of Respondent's actions on this rela-
tively small unit, and, therefore, shall order Re-
spondent to bargain with the Union. 5
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c)of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopt as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Hasbro Indus-
tries, Inc., Pawtucket, Rhode Island, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order.
5 Flle Administrative l.aw Judge inadvertently omitted from his Deci-
sion the date on which the bargaining obligation arose. Chairman Fan-
ning and Member -Truesdale, consistent with their positions set forth in
Frito-Lay, Inc., 232 NLRB 753 (1977), and Cas Walker's Cash Stores, Inc.
249 NLRB 316 (198(), respectively. date the bargaining obligation from
January 24. 1977. the date the Union demanded recognition from Re-
sponden.
In accordance with Frading Port Inc., 219 NLRB 298 (1975), and the
Kroger (Co.. 228 NLRKH 149 (1977), Member Penello would date the bar-
gaining order from November 28, 1977, when Respondent embarked on
its urnla fal course of cinduict
DECISION
STAITEMENI OF THE CASE
JOHN C. MIll.ER, Administrative Law Judge: This
proceeding which initially encompassed the complaint in
Case -CA-14134 was heard before me in Pawtucket,
Rhode Island, on September 11-14, 1978, and involved
allegations of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5). By motion
dated May 3, 1979, counsel for the General Counsel re-
quested the proceedings be reopened and that the com-
plaint I-CA-15803 be consolidated with the original
complaint in Case -CA-14134 to avoid relitigation and
unnecessary costs and delay. I granted the motion for re-
opening and consolidation of the complaints and a fur-
ther hearing was conducted on August 22, and 23, 1979.
The parties had full opportunity to introduce testimo-
nial and documentary evidence on the issues and have
filed briefs thereon which have been fully considered.
On the entire record in this consolidated proceeding,
including my observation of the witnesses and their de-
meanor, I make the following findings:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent is a corporation organized under the laws
of the State of Rhode Island and maintains its principal
office and place of business at 1027 Newport Avenue,
Pawtucket, Rhode Island, and is in the manufacture, sale,
and distribution of toys, printed material, and related
products. Annually Respondent ships goods valued in
excess of $50,000 from its plant to points located outside
the State of Rhode Island. The complaint alleges, Re-
spondent admits, and I find that the above admitted facts
establish that Respondent is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
It is further alleged and admitted that Local 26-L,
Graphic Arts International Union, AFL-CIO, hereafter
the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act, and I so find.
It. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE ALLEGATIONS
A. Factual Background
On January 24, 1977, the Union herein sent Respon-
dent Company a letter advising that a majority of the
employees in the printing section had designated the
Union as their representative and requesting recognition.
That same day the Union filed a representation petition
with the Board, Case 1--RC-14976. On January 26, 1977,
Respondent replied by letter advising that the Union's
representation claim would have to await further Nation-
al Labor Relations Board proceedings.
A hearing was held on the Union's petition on certain
dates in February and March 1977. On June 28, 1977, a
Decision and Direction of Election was issued by the
Regional Director finding a unit limited to the printing
and lithographic section was appropriate, and an election
was scheduled for July 28, 1977. The election was post-
poned as the Board granted a company request for
review and the Board, on November 21, 1977, issued its
decision affirming the Regional Director, and the elec-
tion was scheduled for December 16, 1977. The election
was held and results disclosed seven ballots for the
Union and eight against. The challenges to three votes
were ultimately upheld. The Union also filed objections
to the election which were sustained by the Regional Di-
rector who then directed a second election.
On February 16, 1978, the Union filed unfair labor
practice charges and the second election was deferred
pending disposition of those charges. A hearing was held
on September 11-14, 1978, on this complaint and subse-
quently, on March 17, 1979, new charges were filed by
the Union alleging discriminatory layoffs on November
24, 1978. I granted a motion to consolidate these pro-
ceedings, and a second hearing was held on August 22-
23, 1979.
The Election Campaign: Subsequent to the filing of the
petition for an election, the Respondent vigorously cam-
paigned to persuade employees to reject the Union. The
General Counsel's Exhibits 2(i) through (z) are letters
distributed by Respondent to employees during Decem-
ber 1-15, 1977, just prior to the election held on Decem-
ber 16, 1977. In addition to the letters, Hugh Maxwell,
vice president of operations, and Peter Fornal, vice
president of industrial relations, had a series of morning
meetings with employees in the proposed unit.' They
' After a hearing on the appropriate unit and an appeal to the Board,
the following unit was found appropriate All lithographic pressmen,
feeders, helpers, loaders, plate-makers, multilith operators and suppliers of
stock to the lithographic operation By the time of the election such unit
was doswn to 15 employees, as 3 employees who voted challenged ballots
Continued
588
HASBRO INDUSTRIES. INC
began initially as group meetings and later employees
met individually with Maxwell and Fornal in the cafete-
ria. To the extent group meetings continued, four em-
ployees-Arthur Huard, Jean Beaucage, Mark Stanley,
and William McHugh-were singled out as a separate
group and met with Respondent's vice presidents. Ac-
cording to Maxwell, these four employees showed little
interest in what management had to say and were kept in
a separate grouping. A number of employees, e.g.,
Albino Enes and Antonio Pasadas, were of Portugese de-
scent and spoke and understood English to a limited
extent. Except for an alleged inquiry of Pasadas by Re-
spondent as to why he wanted a union, what occurred at
the meetings themselves was not alleged as threatening
or coercive. It is primarily the content of Respondent's
letters to employees that is alleged as threatening or co-
ercive. The Charging Party, however, contends that the
massive deluge of antiunion literature should be consid-
ered in conjunction with the meetings with Respondent's
vice presidents, and Respondent's emphasis in such let-
ters on such matters as possible strikes, lost wages, the
replacement of strikers, and the risk of losing existing
benefits. In such context it is urged that the letters to em-
ployees are coercive and violative of Section 8(a)(1).
It is undisputed that the Union secured signed union
authorization cards from I I employees in the 18-person
unit prior to their demand for recognition on January 24,
1977, and that in the subsequent election, held on De-
cember 16, 1977, the Union secured 7 of the 15 votes ul-
timately held to be valid. The thrust of the 8(a)(5) allega-
tion, therefore, relates to alleged conduct which oc-
curred prior to and after the election which the General
Counsel and the Union contends not only affected the
election but now makes a fair second election impossible.
A review of the specific 8(a)(l), (3), and (4) allegations
and the evidentiary support therefor are discussed in
detail hereinafter.
B. Complaint in Case 1-C.4-4134 Contains
Allegations Involving Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of
the Act
1. The 8(a)(l) allegations
a. Granting of pay increases2
The complaint alleged that employees Norman
Goyette, Arthur Moreira, and Gary Tinley were granted
pay raises on or about November 1977, with the object
of persuading them not to vote for the Union. Joint Ex-
hibit 4 establishes that all three were given raises on No-
vember 28, 1977. It is also undisputed that on November
21, 1977, the Board issued its decision on review affirm-
ing the Regional Director's Decision and Direction of
Election, and the parties were so notified on November
21, 1977, or the following day. Thereafter, the election
was scheduled for December 16, 1977. Thus of the 15
were found to have no reasonable expectation of reemployment as the
result of a reduction in force.
2 The normal rule is that if the raises were scheduled or Awould normal-
ly have been given. it is not a violation On the other hand, if the raises
were given at other than scheduled times in order to influence emplos-
ees' support of a union, it would be a violation of the Act The raises in
question were discretionary raises
employees ultimately found to be in the unit, 3 received
raises on November 28, 1977.
The timing of the raises alone raises questions about
the motivation and requires further inquiry.
Sidney Feldman, manager of the packaging and box-
making department, testified that on or about January 20,
1977, he had reviewed a payroll list of employees (Resp.
Exh. 20) and had noted on the list dates and amounts of
projected raises from employees and particularly for
Tinley and Moreira. Respondent's Exhibit 20 discloses,
inter alia, the following:
N. Goyette (changed Class C oper 4/11/77) (Max
5.00) (7/20-.20) (10/20-.20) (12/1-25) 5.40
G. Tinly ((transferred) 1/10/77) (now 3.45) (7/1
.20) (12/1-.25) 3.90
Joint Exhibit 4 (copies of the employment records for
these individuals and others) discloses the actual pay
raises. This exhibit did not show any raise given to
Goyette on October 20 and Feldman had no explanation
for the failure to grant a raise on October 20. He testified
that, as the raises were given, he normally crossed off
the raise in question on Respondent's Exhibit 20. Joint
Exhibit 4 and Respondent's Exhibit 20 indicate that it
was not unusual for employees to get two or more raises
in a year.
Joint Exhibit 4 disclosed the actual record of raises
given in 1977:
Norman Goyette-30¢ on 1/3/77; 20¢ on 7/18; and
25¢ on November 28, 1977
Arthur Moreira-25¢ on 1/3/77: 30C on 1./31/77;
25¢ on 8/1; and 25 on November 28, 1977
Gary Tinley-25C on 1/10; 20¢ on 7/1 1; and 35 on
November 28, 1977
In attempting to determine what motivated the raises,
it will be necessary to examine, inter alia, what percent-
age of employees in the bargaining unit got the raise;
what other employees in the packaging and box-making
department received raises at the same time; and whether
the employees in question received raises because of re-
classification or for other reasons.
Raises to 3 employees out of 15 obviously results in 20
percent of the employees in the bargaining unit receiving
a raise just prior to the election. Feldman testified that
there were approximately 45 employees in his packaging
and box-making department. Joint Exhibit 5 discloses ap-
proximately 40 employees in this department. known as
department 222, while Respondent's Exhibit 20 indicates
approximately 46 employees in this department. Accept-
ing the figure of 45, the printing sectiotn or bargaining
unit had 15 employees thus constituting one-third of the
department. An examination of Joint Exhibit 5 discloses
only one individual, Peck, out of 30 in the packaging de-
partment who received a raise on November 28, 1977. or
shortly thereafter, as contrasted to 3 of 15 in the bargain-
589
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing unit.3 Thus in a grouping twice as large (30 as com-
pared to 15) only one-third as many employees received
raises.
Sidney Feldman credibly testified that it was his prac-
tice to accelerate raises where a senior employee was re-
classified. Goyette was reclassified on April II, 1977, to
pressman C, and Tinley was transferred into the printing
section on January 10, 1977. Both were senior employ-
ees.
It should also be noted that Goyette was scheduled for
a raise on November 20, 1977, but received it along with
Tinley and Moreira on November 28, 1977. Further, Re-
spondent's Exhibit 20 indicates Tinley and Moreira were
scheduled for raises on December 1, 1977. As noted pre-
viously, Feldman did not know why Goyette was not
given a scheduled raise on October 20, 1977.
I am persuaded that when Respondent was notified, on
or about November 21, 1977, that the decision of the Re-
gional Director was affirmed, and an election was immi-
nent, it immediately took a look at the bargaining unit
employees and elected to give raises to three employees.
I do not doubt that at some point the three individuals
would have received raises. I am finding that the timing
of these raises was adjusted and prompted by the forth-
coming election. By granting the raises on November 28,
1977, Respondent was attempting to influence the votes
of the employees since the raises, granted approximately
3 weeks before the scheduled election, were at least
known to the concerned employees (and perhaps reflect-
ed in their paychecks received prior to the election al-
though the record does not affirmatively establish that)
prior to the election. In view of the factors discussed, I
find it highly improbable that the raises would have been
granted at the time and all at one time but for the sched-
uling of the election. Accordingly, I find the granting of
these raises was expressly timed to influence employees
in the forthcoming election and was violative of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
b. Interrogation about union activity on or about
December 13, 1977 (complaint, par. 8(b))
Antonio Pasadas credibly testified 4 that on December
13, 1977, he attended a meeting with Maxwell and
Fornal in Respondent's cafeteria and was asked by one
of them why he wanted the Union. Such an inquiry is
coercive because it requires disclosure of his union senti-
ments and is violative of Section 8(a)(1), particularly in
this context, when Pasadas was interrogated in a separate
meeting with Respondent's vice presidents, Maxwell and
Fornal.
c. Threatened plant closure or subcontracting if the
Union was selected (complaint, par. 8(c))
Jean Beaucage, a print shop employee, credibly testi-
fied that on December 15, 1977, Manager Sidney Feld-
a Since Feldman was the manager of the department, it would seem
logical that he would review the entire department for projected raises at
the same time unless he were prompted by a special reason to review
only the bargaining unit
4To the extent Maxwell and Fornal denied asking such a question I
do not credit them. Pasadas' recollection was clear and was supported by
his written record of what occurred.
man, stated that "they [Respondent] would never let an-
other union in here . . . they would farm out the work
or barring that, they would close down the printing de-
partment for a year and take a business loss and reopen
after a year." This conversation occurred the afternoon
before the election. I do not credit Feldman's denial that
he made such a statement.
Beaucage also credibly testified that, in January 1978,
Feldman stated that he "wasn't kidding . . . about clos-
ing the plant down" and would deny making such state-
ment if asked. Accordingly, I find that Feldman's com-
ments on December 15, 1977, were coercive and viola-
tive of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.5
d. Impression of surveillance on or about December
16, 1977 (complaint, par. 8(d))
Mark Stanley, an employee of the printing department,
credibly testified that on December 16, 1977, after the
Christmas party, Sidney Feldman stated to the effect that
"we know how you voted. They or I wouldn't hold that
against you, and that there's three that I am out to get
... you know the three .... " Feldman testified simply
that he told Stanley at the Christmas party that he knew
"how you feel and I know you know how I feel but all
this year you've conducted yourself as a gentleman and I
respect you for it." I credit Stanley in this regard and
find that Feldman did make the comment that Respon-
dent knew how Stanley had voted and by so doing gave
the impression of surveillance of his union activities and
sentiments.
e. High wage increases were given to employees in
packaging and boxmaking in January 1978 to
persuade them to vote against the Union (complaint,
par. 8(e))
The General Counsel concedes that general wage in-
creases were given by Respondent in January of each
year. He contends, however, that the amount of the in-
creases granted in January 1978, to employees in the
packaging and box-making department and specifically to
employees in the printing department where the Decem-
ber 16, 1977, election was held, were much higher than
usual and were designed to influence employees and
erode support for the Union.
In support of his contention, the General Counsel
points out that the range of increases prior to 1978 were
from 20 to 30 cents but that in 1978 the increases for all
employees ranged from 20 to 80 cents, that the range of
increases for employees in the packaging and box-making
department was 50 to 80 cents, and that employees in the
printing section where an election was held on Decem-
ber 16, 1977, generally received 80-cent increases.
' At various points in the hearing Respondent's counsel objected to
testimony involving conduct not alleged as violations in the complaints
Upon representation by the General Counsel that such testimony was
being presented as background, I permitted the testimony but advised the
parties that such evidence would not be utiliczed to find violations not al-
leged Inasmuch as the General Counsel did not move to amend the com-
plaints and Respondent therefore did not seek to adduce evidence on
such matters, the additional matters were not fully litigated and any find-
ings of violation with respect hereto would be improper
590
HASBRO INDUSTRIES. INC.
Respondent argues that the wage increases were
prompted by the Employer's use of a wage survey,
called the "Texas Instrument, Non-Exempt Wage Survey
for 1977" (J. Exh. 2) and that Respondent, after identify-
ing certain key jobs and group classifications into job
families that were comparable to jobs at Hasbro's, would
consider giving the wage increases or approximate wage
increases granted under the survey. Peter Fornal, vice
president of industrial relations, testified that he was the
person responsible for recommending pay raises and the
policies relating thereto. In making these recommenda-
tions, he stated he relied on wage surveys and in particu-
lar the Texas Instrument, Non-Exempt Survey, the Fed-
eral minimum wage, the cost of living and its impact on
employees, the profit picture at Hasbro, and other labor
contract settlements that were applicable. Fornal ac-
knowledged that the Texas Instrument wage survey was
a significant factor in his own wage recommendations
and that, even though there were no exactly comparable
positions listed in the survey, he utilized jobs with skill
levels roughly equal with jobs at Hasbro in determining
recommended wage rates. A review of Joint Exhibit 5
and the briefs of the parties convinces me that unusually
high wage raises were granted to employees in the bar-
gaining unit as compared to raises granted employees in
the packaging and box-making department and to other
hourly employees in the plant.
Of the 15 employees in the bargaining unit, 12 were
recalled in January 1978 and 10 of the 12 recalled re-
ceived wage increases of 80-cents an hour, with one re-
ceiving a 70-cent increase and another receiving a 60-
cent-an-hour increase.A The names of employees and
their raises are listed hereafter.
Beaucage, J.-$.80
Camara-. 80
DeSimas-. 80
Estrella-.80
Ferro-.80
Goyette-. 80
Morais--.80
Moreira--.80
Pasadas--.70
Tinley, G.-.80
Nainteau-.60
McHugh-.80
Other skilled employees, e.g., machinist B. Babota (p.
D, other of Jt. Exh. 5) received only a 50-cent wage in-
crease in January 1978; first-class electrician Roger Rus-
sell (p. XX of exh.) received a 60-cent wage increase.
There are other examples of skilled people who received
less than an 80-cent wage increase in January 1978.
I further note that Joint Exhibit 5 indicates that ap-
proximately 12 other hourly people outside the bargain-
ing unit received raises of 80 cents or more in January
1978. Of those 12 however, 6 were listed as reclassifica-
tions (R). Of the 10 people in the bargaining unit who
received 80-cent raises, 2 (DeSimas and Goyette) were
deemed reclassified. Eliminating the job reclassifications,
which in most instances would warrant larger increases
than a general wage increase from the bargaining unit,
would mean that 8 of 10 employees in the bargaining
unit who were not reclassified received general raises of
e Three other employees in the printing section, Enes. Stanley, and
Huard, ho were not recalled in January 1978, allegedl for discrimina-
tory reasons, were recalled in March. April, and May, 1978. Upon their
return Huard received an 80-cent s"age increase, Stanley a 65-cent in-
crease, and Enes a 60-cent increase
80 cents or more an hour. This compared to approxi-
mately 6 employees out of over 400 persons outside the
bargaining unit (again excluding reclassifications) who
received 80 cents or more hourly increases. The disparity
is startling.
Statistically, the figures discussed above establish to
my satisfication that employees in the bargaining unit
were given higher raises than other hourly employees.
Moreover, the raises were granted to both lower and
higher waged employees in the bargaining unit. Based
upon the above, and in view of Respondent's vigorous
antiunion campaign, I am convinced that the higher
raises were given to employees in the bargaining unit to
demonstrate to the employees that a union was unneces-
sary and to erode support for the Union and that such
conduct was violative of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.7
f. Section 8(f) of the complaint alleges, inter alia: that
Respondent, in letters mailed to its employees in the
period December 1-15, 1977, threatened its employees
that selecting the Union as bargaining representative
would be futile; that it would refuse to bargain in good
faith; that it might bargain as to decrease employee bene-
fits; that the only real result of the election would be a
strike; and that employees would be harmed and a strike
might cause a closing of the plant.
The pertinent letters from Respondent, designated as
the General Counsel's Exhibits 2(i) through (z) were dis-
tributed to employees in the period from December 1 to
15, prior to the scheduled election on December 16,
1977. 8 Citing General Stencils, Inc., 195 NLRB 1109
(1972), the General Counsel contends that the basic
theme of these letters emphasized the possible loss of job
security and benefits, the possibility of a strike and per-
manent replacement, and the possible closing of the plant
if they voted in favor of the Union, and that such letters,
therefore, violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
The Charging Party contends that the barrage of coer-
cive literature in the days prior to the election should be
considered in conjunction with the group meetings and
individual sessions held with employees by management
representatives, and that it constitutes a massive violation
of Section 8(a)(1) and warrants the issuance of a bargain-
ing order.
Respondent contends that its campaign literature con-
tained lawful expressions of its views and opinions re-
garding the possible consequences of unionism and that
such material is entitled to the free speech protections of
Section 8(c) of the Act.
Determining what campaign literature is coercive and
violative of Section 8(a)(1) as contrasted to lawful ex-
pressions of free speech is often a difficult task and the
context in which they occurred may be determinative. I
have carefully reviewed the campaign material and, out
of some 18 exhibits, 4 warrant discussion as possible vio-
lations of the Act.9
San Lorenzo Lumbre Company, 238 N RB 1421 (I978), he Saing,
Bank Company. 207 NL.RB 269 at 272 (1973)
G.C Exhs 2(a) through (h) were materials distributed around July
1977. and are barred from consideration as iolatlions h Sec 10(h) They
wAere admitted as releant hackground material
(G C E-xhs 211. kL). (I), and (m)
591
I)tCISI()NS ()OF NA [IONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The General Counsel's Exhibit 2(i), a letter addressed
to employees and dated December 5, 1977, discusses the
scheduled representation election. Paragraph 3 of the ex-
hibit states:
Our concern goes much deeper than a formal policy
or program because I truly believe we have taken a
personal interest in you and your family. It is this
personal concern which makes me write to you this
week to discuss the real risks which you and your
family may face if you make the wrong decision in
the Labor Board election on December 16. You
have worked hard to provide a home, security, and
to meet the needs of your family. If the Union is
successful, the possibility that you and your family
may be harmed if there are negotiations causes me
great concern. These dangers can have a real
impact on your life, and include:
I. Being forced to negotiate with the wages and
benefits you now enjoy, and taking the risk that
you may lose some of them.
2. The possibility that HASBRO will not reach an
agreement with the union.
3. The possibility that you may be forced to go on
strike, and receive no paycheck every Friday.
Etcetera
While I find nothing wrong in an employer's pointing
out some of the negative aspects of selecting a union, the
statement, "If the union is successful, the possibility that
you and your family may be harmed if there are negotia-
tions causes me great concern," [emphasis supplied] ap-
pears to directly repudiate the collective-bargaining prin-
ciples which underlie the Act. It is one thing to say there
are no guarantees and that there may be minuses as well
as pluses as a result of negotiations. However, this state-
ment goes beyond that. I have reviewed this particular
document in its entirety, and its entire tenor is devoted
to pointing out the risks (loss of wages, strikes, replace-
ment, and loss of benefits) if the Union is successful and
there are negotiations. In light of my prior findings that
Feldman did in fact threaten Beaucage on December 15,
1977, that, if the Union won, work in the printing section
would be contracted out or that section would be closed,
I find that the nuances of such document become more
meaningful and, while the document might otherwise be
deemed lawful, it is unlawful in this context.
Another document warranting discussion is the Gener-
al Counsel's Exhibit 2(k), dated December 12, 1977, and
delivered to employees in the printing department that
stressed the realities of collective bargaining, namely,
that everything employees now enjoy-wages, all bene-
fits, and working conditions-goes on the bargaining
table and there are no guarantees. For purposes of dis-
cussion paragraphs 3 and 4 of such document is set forth
below:
Before you vote, you should carefully consider all
the benefits you presently enjoy as a HASBRO em-
ployee. If the Graphic Arts Union gets in here, you
risk losing:
Fair Wages
Medical Insurance
Major Medical
Coverage
Group Surgical
Medical
Coverage
Life Insurance
Pension Plan
Paid Vacations
Paid Holidays
Lunch Periods
Call-in Pay
Overtime Pay
Jury Pay
Credit Union
Service Awards
Break Periods
Personal Leaves
Paid Bereavement Leaves
Bulletin Board Privileges
Company Recreation
Functions
Job Posting System
Employees Park Privileges
Employee Cafeteria
Privileges
Personal Counseling with
Personnel Dept.
Christmas Bonus
Blood Bank
Educational Assistance
Scholarship Program
Employee Discounts
How many of these existing benefits and privileges
will the Graphic Arts Union agree to trade away or
reduce in exchange for dues checkoff and a Union
Security Clause? Personally, I think the risk is too
great to take.
It can be argued that the above-cited paragraphs and
the document as a whole merely stress that bargaining is
a two-sided affair and may result in the diminishment of
certain existing benefits as well as the possibility of in-
creased benefits. Conversely, it is also arguable that by
listing every employee benefit and stressing the risk of
losing such benefits if there are negotiations with the
Union, the Company is directly or inferentially threaten-
ing a loss of existing benefits.
In the final analysis is the above document, considered
in its entirety, lawful campaign material under Section
8(c) or does it reflect a threat of loss of benefits that
would coerce employees in their decision to select a bar-
gaining representative'?
Its stress on the risk of losing existing benefits, particu-
larly the statement that "If the Graphic Arts Union gets
in here, you risk losing . . ." appears more than a propa-
ganda pitch but a persistent theme of loss of benefits or
reduction in benefits if the Union were selected. I con-
clude that the document was carefully calculated to play
on and exploit the fears of employees about losing exist-
ing benefits and was intended to and did coerce employ-
ees in the selection of their bargaining representative in
this context.
Another document (G.C. Exh. 2(1), dated December
14, 1977) points out what might result if a strike ensued,
mentioning, for example, the lost wages, the loss of com-
pany paid benefits, and possible permanent replacement.
Upon review of the document I conlude that, while it
does mention the consequences of a strike, I find that it
does not exceed permissible campaigning and does not,
in my view, amount to restraint or coercion of employ-
ees.
The General Counsel's Exhibit 2(m) is a six-page docu-
ment giving information about the time and place of the
592
HASBRO INDUSTRIES, INC.
representation election, including a copy of a sample
ballot. Page three appears to be the only questionable
part of the exhibit and that page contains the following:
REMEMBER!!
NO UNION can get you more than you can get
for yourself.
NO UNION can get for you more than the Com-
pany is willing to give.
NO UNION is worth your freedom to act for
yourself.
NO UNION can guarantee you a job-or higher
wages-or better benefits.
NO UNION got you the steady work, wages and
other benefits you now have.
NO UNION has to tell us we must treat our em-
ployees fairly. We do that automatically.
NO UNION is easy to get rid of-once you have
one.
NO UNION means NO loss of income or jobs
through strikes.
NO UNION wants to represent you for free.
NO UNION will know how you voted.
NO UNION-that's the best union.
NO UNION-vote NO on December 16!!
BE SURE TO VOTE
The only questionable comment appears to be the ini-
tial statement-namely, "NO UNION can get you more
than you can get for yourself."
The statement is stated in absolute terms and not in
equivocal terminology. It can be argued that by this
statement the Company has indicated that it would be
futile for the employees to select a collective-bargaining
representative, or, alternatively, that the Company had
predetermined that it would be so inflexible in its bar-
gaining positions as to amount to a refusal to bargain. On
the other hand, the balance of the statements, e.g., "NO
UNION-that's the best union" are relatively innocuous
comments designed to persuade the employees to reject
the Union. When viewed with the other comments, the
statement does not appear coercive. Accordingly, I
reject the contention that the General Counsel's Exhibit
2(m) is coercive either in part or considered as a whole.
I have considered the arguments that the volume and
content of the letters, when considered in conjunction
with the interviews, be deemed coercive. However, the
Company is entitled to campaign vigorously and sheer
volume and intensity of the Company's campaign does
not amount to a violation of the Act. Other than the in-
terrogation of Pasadas, I do not find the utilization of
meetings with Maxwell and Fornal in the cafeteria im-
proper or coercive. Obviously, the Union has the option
of campaigning just as vigorously for the right to repre-
sent employees.
In sum, I conclude that two of the documents (G.C.
Exhs. 2(i) and (k)), went beyond lawful informational
campaigning and, when considered in the context of the
unlawful interrogation of Pasadas, and the threat ex-
pressed by Feldman that the Company would either con-
tract out the printing work or close down that section if
the Union were selected, I find such material coercive
and violative of Section 8(a)(l).
g. Paragraph 8(g) of the complaint alleges that at a
meeting with employees on or about February 24, 1978,
Hugh Maxwell, vice president of operations, stated that
the Union opposed the recently granted wage increases.
It is undisputed that the General Counsel's Exhibit 8 is
the text of a speech given by Maxwell to the printing de-
partment and states in pertinent part:
The most important thing that the union claims is
unfair are the annual wage increase we gave you in
January. The Union claims we should not have
done it. We think differently. We believe strongly
that granting those increases was right and very
fair. Unfortunately, the union disagrees and would
have liked us to give you nothing at all. We are
going to discuss this matter with the Labor Board
and hope we can convince them that we were right
in giving the increases to you and there was nothing
unfair about it.
The General Counsel contends this is a clear misrepre-
sentation and points to the charge filed by the Union
which claimed that the wage increases were for the pur-
pose of discouraging support for the Union and that, as a
remedy therefor, the Union requested the increases
placed in effect be maintained and that other increases
promised be granted. It is clear, however, that the Union
alleged that the raises granted in January 1978 were
unfair labor practices and was merely urging that if the
wage increases were found unfair, the remedy did not re-
quire their recission. The statement, "Unfortunately the
union disagrees and would have liked us to give you
nothing at all," is arguable as being a misrepresentation
in light of the Union's position that raises granted be
maintained. Conversely, the Union, by charging that the
raises given were unfair labor practices and then urging
that, as a remedy, the raises be maintained was attempt-
ing to have its cake and eat it too. Moreover, since the
Union was claiming the wage increases were unfair labor
practices, the practical effect was to discourage the
granting of any wage increases.
I find the incident susceptible of several interpretations
and while Respondent may have overstated its case, it
was a normal reaction to the filing of the Union's
charges on the wage increases. As such, I find it an area
of arguable contention and not a flagrant misrepresenta-
tion and, therefore, conclude the speech and comments
discussed were not violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
2. The 8(a)(3) allegations
The complaint alleges that on January 22, 1978, Re-
spondent violated the Act by discriminatorily failing to
recall three employees-Albert Enes, Arthur Iluard, and
Mark Stanley.
All or practically all of Respondent's hourly employ-
ees were laid off, as was the usual custom, on or about
December 16, 1977. By January 22. 1978. all the laid-off
printing section employees were recalled except for
Enes, Htuard, and Stanley.
5093
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In support of the allegations, counsel for the General
Counsel points out that Huard and Stanley's support for
the Union was known by Respondent, that Huard acted
as the union observer at the election held on December
16, 1977, that the report of projected impressions (print-
ing) made by Feldman which was utilized by Respon-
dent to support its economic layoff was the first time
such report had been prepared for the printing depart-
ment, and that there was an increase in the amount of
work subcontracted in 1978 over 1977.
In rebuttal, Respondent contends that the failure of
these employees to be recalled was prompted by legiti-
mate and substantial business reasons, namely, lack of
work, and notes that Huard was in fact recalled on
March 27, 1978, and Stanley and Enes were recalled on
April 5 and May 9, respectively.10
Respondent states that, after a printing forecast was
made for the 1978 toy line, it was concluded by Maxwell
that only five presses would be operated and that oper-
ations would be eliminated on a two-color paper press
and a single-color paper press. The selection of Enes,
Huard, and Stanley for layoff was based on the fact that
they had the least seniority in their classifications. Re-
spondent contends, and it is not disputed that they fol-
lowed "company seniority within a specific classifica-
tion" and that there was no practice of bumping employ-
ees from one classification to another. Overtime in 1978
averaged 18 hours per week compared to 93 hours a
week in 1977. Lastly, Respondent noted that there were
no new employees hired nor transfers made into the
printing section and points out that Jean Beaucage, a
known union supporter, was recalled to work January 3,
1978. Respondent further asserts that subcontracting of
printing work in 1978 was not substantially different
from 1977.
I have reviewed the respective contentions in light of
the record and have concluded that the preponderance
of the evidence does not establish that the failure to
recall Enes, Huard, and Stanley was discriminatorily mo-
tivated. First, all three were ultimately recalled to work.
There is nothing in the record to establish that Respon-
dent utilized a special method of selection to reach these
three individuals but it did in fact utilize seniority in clas-
sification for determining layoffs, a practice apparently
utilized in the past. (See Resp. Exh. 12.) In addition,
there is no evidence of other individuals being hired as
replacements nor were other employees transferred in to
operate the two machines. There is no contention that
the machines in question were operated during the time
these individuals were on layoff. Further, Respondent's
Exhibit 15, a printing comparison for 1977 versus a 1978
forecast, Respondent's Exhibit 16, a memo to Ed Daisey
from Hugh Maxwell, dated December 30, 1977, and Re-
spondent's Exhibit 17, a January 1978 forecast of printing
work (or impressions), and Respondent's Exhibit 18 are
supportive of Respondent's contention that the failure to
recall Enes, Huard, and Stanley was economically moti-
vated. I also note that there were three individuals laid
off in April 1977 from the printing section in a reduction
in force that was not alleged to be discriminatory.
'O Huard apparently declined recall.
In reaching such conclusion, I am aware of other fac-
tors that tend to establish a discriminatory motive. Huard
and Stanley were two individuals of four singled out for
separate meetings with management presumably because
of their union sympathies. There had not been a January
forecast (Resp. Exh. 17) ever prepared before. Also,
Huard had acted as election observer for the Union and
Feldman, manager of the department, was aware of their
union sympathies. While the above matters do raise sus-
picions, I find them outweighed by the factors previous-
ly mentioned. Accordingly, I shall dismiss this allegation.
3. The 8(a)(5) allegations
The complaint (pars. 13-16) alleges that on or about
January 24, 1977, a majority of employees in the printing
section had designated the Union as bargaining represen-
tative, that the Union had requested bargaining, and that
since August 15, 1977, Respondent has refused to bargain
and had engaged in conduct making the holding of a fair
election impossible.
Since the record establishes that the Union had
achieved a card majority prior to the alleged unfair labor
practices, and recognition was requested and denied, the
only issue is whether the unfair labor practices found
preclude a fair second election. If it does, under Gissel'l
a bargaining order would be justified. 2
Briefly, I found that prior to the December 16, 1977,
election Respondent:
(a) Granted raises to three employees to influence their
vote.
(b) Coercively interrogated employee Antonio Pasa-
das.
(c) Threatened employee Jean Beaucage that printing
work would be subcontracted or the printing section
closed if the Union were selected.
(d) Gave an impression of surveillance of employees'
union activities by advising employee Stanley that they
knew how he voted.
(e) Circulated letters (G.C. Exhs. 2(i) and (k) which in
this context resulted in coercing employees about re-
duced benefits.
After the election and while objections were still pend-
ing, Respondent granted unusually high wage increases
to employees in the bargaining unit. While the conduct
found prior to the election might be classed as isolated,
and arguably insufficient to preclude a fair second elec-
tion, I am persuaded that the granting of unusually high
wage increases after the first election effectively prevents
the holding of a fair second election. Moreover, while
the interrogation of Pasadas and comment to Stanley ap-
peared to be isolated violations, the threat to close the
printing section is a serious violation and, when consid-
ered in conjunction with the high wage increase and
i .VL.R.B. v (;issel Packing C'o. Inc., 395 U S 575 (1909)
In view ,lf my subscquenlt findings that Albert Enes, Mark Stanley,
and Arthur Moreira were not discrininatorily laid (lfl in N,,embcr 1978.
as alleged in the complaint Case I CA -15801, such findings are not ;I
factor in determining whether a (I lse/l hrgaillng order Is appropriate.
Item (d) above also occurred ater he election.
594
HASBRO INDUSTRIES, INC.
other 8(a)(l) conduct, warrants the issuance of a bargain-
ing order. 3
While the Employer's initial refusal to recognize and
bargain with the Union was lawful, its subsequent unfair
labor practices, which I conclude would prevent a fair
second election, were motivated by a desire to erode the
Union's majority status and requires a finding that Re-
spondent's refusal to bargain was violative of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
C. Complaint in Case -CA-15803
An additional hearing was held on this complaint on
August 22, 23, 1979, which was consolidated with Case
l-CA-14134 for decision. This additional complaint as
amended alleged that on or about November 24, 1978,
Respondent laid off and refused to reinstate Albert Enes,
Mark Stanley, and Arthur Moreira because of their assis-
tance and support for the Union and because of their
participation and testimony in a prior National Labor
Relations Board hearing.
The parties stipulated that the layoff dates of the indi-
viduals concerned were as follows:
Albert Enes-laid off December 16, 1977; recalled
May 9, 1978; laid off November 24, 1978-not re-
called
Mark Stanley-laid off December 16, 1977; recalled
April 5, 1978; laid off August 4, 1978; recalled
September 25, 1978; laid off November 24, 1978-
not recalled
Arthur Moreira-laid off December 16, 1977; re-
called January 3, 1978; laid off November 24,
1978-not recalled.
As noted previously, only the layoffs of November 24,
1978, are in issue in this complaint.
Respondent defends on the grounds that the layoffs
were prompted by lack of work. It points to declining
sales in 1978, changes in the toy product line which re-
quired less printing overall, and increased requirements
for outside printing. Respondent further claims that no
new hires or transfers were made into the printing sec-
tion, that the reductions were in accord with their usual
seniority policy, and that there is no evidence of dis-
criminatory motive.
The General Counsel attacks Respondent's economic
defense by noting that prior sales declines had not affect-
ed employee manning in the printing section, that
changes in the product line were a regular and not un-
usual occurrence, and that the purported necessity for
some increase in outside printing were all subterfuges to
hide the real motivation for the layoffs.
While determining the true motivation for layoffs is at
times difficult, the factual context and all relevant factors
must be considered.
':' n addilio, I credit Enes, I'asadas, and Moreir;a that Feldman told
them on December I, 197q, Ihal hey acre lucky the lUniron did not ,.in
because the printing sectionll would he closed This corrobor.tes eirlplo,-
ee Beaucage's Itesimon regarding Fldman and estahhlishes hl the
threat to subcontracl the s oirk or close Ihe secction was k \, r ha
number of employees
Layoffs are fairly common in the toy industry and this
Company, as projected and actual sales may vary consid-
erably depending on the competition and demand fac-
tors. In the past, however, layoffs had been infrequent in
the printing section. It is undisputed that no one was
hired or transferred in to the printing section to replace
those laid off. To the extent that Gary Tinley worked on
the presses in 1979, 1 find that he filled in briefly and
sporadically for rush orders or when someone was off
sick and he did not regularly perform the work of the
laid-off employees.
Mark Stanley testified on September 13, 1978, that he
was on layoff at that time. Subsequent to the hearing at
which he testified, he was recalled on September 25,
1978, and again laid off on November 24, 1978. Thus, al-
though it was later alleged that he was discriminatorily
selected for layoff because of his union activities or be-
cause of his testimony at the hearing, he was recalled to
work 2 weeks later. With respect to subcontracting the
printing work, Feldman testified at one point that Bill
Daisey of production control made the determination of
what printing work was to be contracted out.'4 In addi-
tion, there has been no evidence that Respondent varied
from its regular practice of laying off the least senior in-
dividual in a classification. Thus, if a one-color paper op-
erator were to be laid off, the one selected in that classi-
fication was the one with the least company seniority.
In sum, there is no evidence that the individuals laid
off were replaced by new hires or transferees; Respon-
dent did not vary from its normal seniority policy in se-
lecting those for layoff; and Mark Stanley, who was on
economic layoff on September 13, 1978, when he testi-
fied, was recalled to work on September 25, 1978, de-
spite subsequent allegations, inter alia, that his testimony
prompted his later selection for layoff. There is no evi-
dence that the subcontracting that was done was prompt-
ed by other than normal managerial decisions and it is
undisputed that there was a sales decline in 1978. have
carefully considered whether Respondent purposefully
contracted out printing work and then selected these in-
dividuals for layoff because of their union support or
their testimony and, finding insufficient evidence to sup-
port these allegations, I recommend they be dismissed.
111. THE REMEDY
In order to remedy the unfair labor practices found
and to effectuate the purposes of the Act, the Respon-
dent will be ordered to cease and desist its unlawful con-
duct and to recognize and bargain with the Union as the
bargaining representative of the employees in the print-
ing section of the plant in the unit previously found ap-
propriate by the Board.
CONCIUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
" Appa;rcntlI Englc. ,ic prcsidelI of prchasinig, a3nd the product
managers pla a nat.r rly i1 such decision,
595
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. Respondent through its representatives and agents
did:
(a) Unlawfully grant wage increases to three employ-
ees to influence their vote in an election.
(b) Unlawfully interrogate an employee about his
union sentiments and beliefs.
(c) Unlawfully threaten an employee that printing
work would be contracted out or the printing section
closed if the Union were selected.
(d) Unlawfully gave an employee an impression of sur-
veillance of his and other employees' union activities.
(e) Unlawfully circulating letters which, when consid-
ered with other conduct, constitutes a threat to reduce
employees' benefits if the Union were selected.
(f) Unlawfully grant high wage increases to employees
in the bargaining unit with the purpose of eroding em-
ployee support for the Union.
The above-itemized conduct was violative of Section
8(a)(l) of the Act.
4. Respondent, by refusing to recognize and bargain
with the Union, and thereafter engaging in unlawful con-
duct designed to erode employee support for the Union,
and thereby preventing the holding of a fair second elec-
tion, has refused to bargain in violation of Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act.
5. Except as specifically found above, Respondent did
not otherwise engage in any other unfair labor practices.
6. The above unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and upon the entire record herein and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I make the follow-
ing recommended:
ORDER' 5
The Respondent, Hasbro Industries, Inc., Pawtucket,
Rhode Island, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Granting employees wage increases prior to an
election to influence their vote.
(b) Interrogating employees about their union senti-
ments and beliefs.
(c) Giving an employee an impression of surveillance
of his and other employees union activities.
(d) Threatening an employee that printing work would
be contracted out or the printing section closed if the
Union were selected.
I In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided
in Sec 12.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and
become its findings, conlclusions, and ()rder and all objectlions thereto
shall be deemed waived for all purposes
(e) Circulating letters which when considered with the
above conduct constitute threats to reduce employee
benefits if the Union were selected.
(f) Granting high wage increases to employees in the
bargaining unit to erode the employee support for the
Union.
(g) Refusing to bargain collectively with respect to
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment with Local 26-L, Graphic Arts International
Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining represen-
tative of its employees in the following appropriate unit:
All lithographic pressmen, feeders, helpers, loaders,
plate-makers, multilith operators and suppliers of
stock to the lithographic operation, employed by
the Respondent at its Newport Avenue, Pawtucket,
Rhode Island plant, but excluding all other employ-
ees, employees represented by another labor organi-
zation, office clerical employees, professional em-
ployees, guards and supervisors as defined in Sec-
tion 2(11) of the Act.
(h) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the purposes of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named Union
as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employ-
ees in the unit described previously with respect to
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment and, if an agreement is reached, embody such
agreement in a signed contract.
(b) Post at its place of business in Pawtucket, Rhode
Island, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix." t Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 1, after being duly signed
by an authorized representative of Respondent, are to be
posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof
and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days there-
after, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said no-
tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
: In the event that this Order is cnforced by Judgment of a United
States Court (of Appeals, the words in the notice reacing Posted by
Order cI Ille National L.abor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgmlent of the Untiled Slates Court of Appeals nlfi)rcilng an
Order of the National l.abor Relations Bltiard"
596