Ideal Basic Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 19, 1990

298 N.L.R.B. 248 (N.L.R.B. 1990)

248 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ideal Basic Industries , Inc. and Cement, Lime and
Gypsum Workers Local Lodge No . D114. Case
17-CA-14205
April 19, 1990
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
CRACRAFT AND DEVANEY
On November 22, 1989, Administrative Law
Judge William F. Jacobs issued the attached deci-
sion. The Respondent filed exceptions and a sup-
porting brief and the General Counsel filed a cross-
exception and a brief in support of that cross-ex-
ception and in answer to the Respondent's excep-
tions.1
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its autnority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,2 and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended
Order.3
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Ideal Basic
Industries, Inc., Ada, Oklahoma, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Order, except that the attached notice
is substituted for that of the administrative law
judge.
S Interest will be computed as prescribed in New Horizons for the Re-
tarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
i The General Counsel cross-excepted to the judge 's omission of a
paragraph in his recommended Notice to Employees stating that the Re-
spondent will not in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Sec. 7
of the Act. We find merit in the cross -exception and issue the attached
notice in place of that proposed by the judge.
2 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find-
ings. The Board 's established policy is not to overrule an administrative
law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all
the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect . Standard Dry
Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951).
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing
the findings . We note, contrary to the Respondent 's contention , that the
judge did not make a credibility resolution concerning Plant Superintend-
ent Cristefli's testimony regarding the existence in September 1988 of
written and oral employee statements concerning the Union, that the
judge, in fact, did make such a credibility resolution . In that regard, we
note first, that at sec. III, par. 5, in addressing various alleged incidents of
8(a)(1) violations, the judge stated that he found "the testimony of the
witnesses presented by General Counsel to be credible and that of Cres-
tilli [sic] to be totally lacking in candor and unworthy of belief." Then, at
par. 14 of the "Conclusions" section of his decision , the judge summa-
rized , regarding the 8 (a)(1) violations, that he had "found that the testi-
mony of General Counsel 's witnesses is credible and that the testimony of
Cristelli, consequently, is not" and then importantly concluded that "I
likewise find, that Cristelli's uncorroborated testimony that 41 employees
[in September 1988] signed slips indicating a desire to withdraw from the
Union is also untrue." These findings read together clearly demonstrate
that the judge on credibility grounds rejected Cnstelli's testimony con-
cerning the written and oral employee statements allegedly received in
September 1988, and we find no basis to overrule that credibility determi-
nation.
We further note, contrary to the Respondent 's contention, that the sub-
stance of Cristelli's testimony that a majority of the employees wanted to
reject the Union by September 1988 is, in fact, contradicted by credited
testimony In this regard, we note that the judge credited the testimony
of General Counsel's witness James Jackson that, in late November or
early December 1988, Cristelh told Jackson, inter alia, that he only needed
a few signatures to get the majority necessary to decertify the Union.
In light of our finding that the judge discredited Cnstelh's testimony
concerning the alleged lack of majority support for the Union in Septem-
ber 1988, we find it unnecessary to pass on the judge 's drawing an ad-
verse inference regarding Cnstelli's testimony from the Respondent 's fail-
ure to present written supporting evidence or to call corroborating wit-
nesses or to explain why this was not done.
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT urge our employees to decertify
the Union.
WE WILL NOT promise our employees increased
benefits in order to get them to abandon the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with plant
closure to discourage union support.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees about
their union sympathies.
WE WILL NOT withdraw recognition from the
Union or refuse to bargain with the Union as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
our employees in the appropriate unit.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally institute pay increases,
savings plans , profit-sharing plans , or other bene-
fits.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally withdraw supplemen-
tal unemployment benefits.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in
the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7
of the Act.
WE WILL recognize and bargain collectively
with the Union concerning wages, hours of em-
ployment, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment of our employees in the appropriate unit
and, if an agreement is reached, WE WILL embody
it in a written contract.
WE WILL, on request of the Union, reinstate any
terms of employment existing prior to the time we
298 NLRB No. 29
IDEAL BASIC INDUSTRIES
unlawfully withdrew recognition from it as the col-
lective-bargaining representative of the employees
in the appropriate unit and WE WILL make the em-
ployees in the unit whole, with interest, for any
losses that they may have suffered by virtue of the
unilateral changes which we made. However, noth-
ing herein shall be construed as requiring rescission
of any benefits that we granted to them after with-
drawing recognition from the Union.
IDEAL BASIC INDUSTRIES, INC.
Lyn R Buckley, Esq., for the General Counsel.
H. Victor Hansen, Esq. and D. Albert Brannen, Esq., of
Atlanta, Georgia, for the Respondent.
Michael J. Stapp, Esq., of Kansas City, Kansas, for the
Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WILLIAM F. JACOBS, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was tried before me on May 3 and 4, 1989 at, Ada,
Oklahoma. The charge was filed on January 23, 1989, by
Cement, Lime and Gypsum Workers Local Lodge No.
D114 (the Union). The complaint issued March 16,
1989,1 alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the
National Labor Relations Act. More specifically, the
complaint alleges that Ideal Basic Industries, Inc. (Re-
spondent) violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when its su-
pervisors interrogated employees concerning their union
sympathies, promised institution of a savings plan and a
retirement plan for employees in return for their opposi-
tion to the Union, informed employees that Respondent's
savings and retirement plans were available only to non-
union employees, promised employees that they would
have a better chance of the plant staying open or of
keeping their jobs if they decertified the Union or the
plant was nonunion, solicited employees to sign a decer-
tification petition, and promised unspecified benefits to
employees if they decertified the Union. Similarly, the
complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1)' of the Act when it withdrew recognition
from the Union, unilaterally instituted a pay increase,
savings plan, and profit-sharing plan and withdrew Sup-
plemental Unemployment Benefits without prior notice
to the Union and without having afforded the Union an
opportunity to negotiate and bargain as the exclusive
representative of its employees. Respondent denies the
commission of any unfair labor practices.
All parties were represented at the hearing and were
afforded full opportunity to be heard and present evi-
dence and argument. General Counsel and Respondent
filed briefs. Upon the entire record, my observation of
the demeanor of the witnesses and after giving due con-
sideration to the briefs, I make the following
1 The complaint as amended April 11, 1989, and again at the hearing.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
249
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find
that Respondent is, and has been at all times material
herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is, and has been at all times material herein,
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Respondent operates 9 cement plants and 17 to 20 ter-
minals throughout the United States. Only its Ada, Okla-
homa facility is involved in this proceeding.
The Union has been the collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees at Respondent's Ada, Oklaho-
ma facility for a number of years in a unit consisting of:
All employees employed by Respondent at its Ada,
Oklahoma facility EXCLUDING office employees,
plant employees, analytical chemists, master me-
chanics, quality control supervisors, electrical super-
visors, plant manager, assistant plant manager and
supervisors as defined in the Act:2
The Union and Respondent have been parties to a
series of collective-bargaining agreements, the most
recent of which expired in 1981. Following negotiations,
Respondent instituted its final proposal concerning the
terms and conditions of employment for the unit and
thereafter continued to recognize and deal with the
Union as exclusive collective -bargaining representative of
the employees in the unit until the incidents which gave
rise to the issuance of the instant complaint occurred.
B. Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (5)
At the hearing, General Counsel called 'eight wit-
nesses, all employees of Respondent who were personal-
ly involved in the 8(a)(1) incidents alleged in the com-
plaint, and more fully detailed infra. Respondent called
one witness, Robert Cristelli, the plant superintendent at
the Ada facility. In addition to contradicting the testimo-
ny of General Counsel's witnesses , Cristelli testified that
in September 19883 he, or other members of manage-
ment, was approached by a majority of unit employees
(41 of 78), each of whom voluntered information and
signed written slips to the effect that they either wished
to get rid of the Union or wished to have it decertified,
or that they no longer desired to be represented by it.
Although Respondent allegedly had 41 witnesses who
could, according to Cristelli, corroborate his testimony,
Respondent called none. Nor was any other evidence of-
fered, written or oral, to support Cristelli's testimony
2 Appropriateness of the unit is admitted
3 Hereafter all dates are in 1988 unless noted otherwise.
250 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
concerning the employees' desire to have the Union de-
certified. In light of Respondent's failure to call corrobo-
rating witnesses or to explain why this was not done, I
feel compelled to draw the inference that if called to tes-
tify these witnesses would not support Cristelli 's testimo-
ny. Consequently, I find that a majority of Respondent's
employees did not advise Respondent in September, or
any other time, that they no longer wished to be repre-
sented by the Union.
Similarly, with regard to the various alleged incidents
of Section 8(a)(1) described infra, I find the testimony of
the witnesses presented by General Counsel to be credi-
ble and that of Crestilli to be totally lacking in candor
and unworthy of belief. Thus, the following employees
of Respondent testified credibly to the incidents de-
scribed:
Morris McGehee: McGehee testified that in October,
Don Thompson, the maintenaince supervisor, invited him
into his pickup truck, stating that he wanted to talk to
him. Once McGehee was inside, Thompson brought up
the subject of decertification of the Union. McGehee
stated that he thought that the "employees still needed a
union . Thompson then suggested that the employees
could vote the Union out, try doing without one for a
while, and if the company did not "stand up to what
they said they would do," the employees "could make
one phone call and the union would be back in."
Thompson did not testify.
McGehee also testified that in the first week in De-
cember, about 8: 15 p.m., as he was preparing to go to
work, Thompson called him and said that Cristelli
wanted to talk to him. McGehee went to the foreman's
office where Cristelli said that he wanted to talk to him
about decertification. McGehee said that he could not
sign "it" [the petition for decertification]. Cristelli insist-
ed that he still wanted to talk to him about it; that he
would treat McGehee the same, whether McGehee
signed the petition or not. McGehee then agreed to
listen.
Cristelli then said that Respondent had a savings plan
that was good; that the company would match, up to a
certain amount of money, what the employees put into
the plan. He said, however, that the plan was only for
nonunion employees.
Then Cristelli changed the subject. He told McGehee
that if Respondent bought the Box Crow plant,4 that
either Respondent's cement plant in Okay, Arkansas, or
the Ada plant would probably have to close and that if
Ada were nonunion, it would stand a better chance of
staying open. McGehee again said that he could not sign
the decertification.5
Finally, McGehee testified that on January 16, 1989,
Carlisle Hill, the production supervisor, and he had a
conversation while in the parking area. Hill invited
McGehee into his pickup truck stating that he had some-
thing that he wanted to talk to him about. When McGe-
hee got in the truck, Hill said he wanted to talk to him
about decertification. McGehee said that he could not
sign it but Hill went on to say how good it would be if
the employees decertified the Union. He added that the
Company only lacked one signature to have enough to
decertify the Union. Hill did not testify.
Charles Wilson: Charles Wilson, a storeroom attendant,
testified that in mid-October, while he was working in
the storage area, after hours, Cristelli came in and asked
if he could talk with him. He then said that he would
like to know how Wilson felt about decertification of the
Union. Wilson replied that he did not feel very good
about it adding, "and Bob, I didn't really think that you
was this kind of person." Wilson asked Cristelli what
kind of pressure the Company was putting on him, and
what was happening to make him try to decertify the
Union. Cristelli objected that there was no pressure on
him; that he was all right financially; and that he could
retire at any time. He said that he had just been asked by
several people who were concerned about decertification
to take a poll but that he was under no pressure from the
plant to take it.
Wilson testified that there had been rumors that Re-
spondent was going to, buy the Box Crow cement plant
and if it did so, either Respondent's plant in Okay, Ar-
kansas, or the Ada plant might have to close. During this
conversation, Wilson asked Cristelli about this situation
and Cristelli stated that if Box Crow were brought into
Respondent's system; if Respondent bought Box Crow,
then between Ada and Okay, one of them might not be
needed; and that he felt that Ada would have a better
chance of keeping its doors open if the Union were de-
certified at Ada.
Cristelli assured Wilson that he would not think any
more or less of him, if he signed or did not sign . Wilson
decided not to sign but discussed with other employees
his conversation with Cristelli.s
Ishmal Tatum: Tatum testified that one afternoon, in
November, while he was in the shop, in the quarry, Cris-
telli asked him if he would consider signing a list to do
away with the Union. Tatum replied in the negative.?
Two or three weeks after the November conversation
between Tatum and Cristelli, the two had a second con-
versation8 in the afternoon, in the shop, in the quarry.
During this conversation, Cristelli again asked Tatum if
he had thought about signing the petition to get rid of
the Union. Tatum replied that he did not want to sign it.
Cristelli then brought up the subject of the savings plan,
4 Another cement company's plant.
s Cnstelh admitted having a conversation with McGehee about the
union situation during the first week in December but his version is en-
tirely different. Critelli denied stating that the savings plan was only for
nonumon employees and that he brought up the subject of the savings
plan only after McGehee asked about the difference in benefits received
by nonunion employees Cristelli also denied asking McGehee if he
wanted to sign a decertification slip and telling him that Ada would have
a better chance at staying open if it were nonunion.
6 Concerning this conversation , Critelli denied making the substantive
remarks which Wilson attributed to him and offered his own version of
the conversation Where the testimony of the two differs, I credit Wilson.
' Cristelli denied that he ever asked Tatum this question . I credit
Tatum.
8 Critelli denied ever having this conversation with Tatum , and de-
scribed a conversation which he had with him at this time which was
entirely different in content. Where the two versions differ, I credit
Tatum.
IDEAL'BASIC INDUSTRIES 251
explaining that under the plan, if Tatum invested 6 per-
cent of his income, the Company could match it for 25
percent, and this could be done if the Union was out.
Tatum again refused to sign the petition. Cristelli said
that it did not matter to him; that he was going to treat
Tatum the same, regardless of whether or not he signed.
James Jackson: Jackson, an employee of Respondent
for 13 years, testified that in late November or early De-
cember, Cristelli invited him, to go outside the shop, to
somewhere "where they could talk." Jackson agreed
and, once outside, Cristelli asked Jackson if he would be
interested in signing a paper to decertify and get rid of
the Union. He stated that there were some employees
that had indicated to him that they did not feel that they
needed representation, and that he only needed a few
signatures to get the majority of employees necessary to
decertify the Union. Cristelli said that it did not matter
to him whether Jackson signed the paper or not but,
nevertheless, asked him to keep their conversation confi-
dential.9
A few weeks after the first conversation, Jackson and
Cristelli had another conversation during which Cristelli
asked Jackson if he had changed his mind, if he would
be interested in signing the decertification paper. Jackson
replied that he had not changed his mind.'0
A third conversation took place between Jackson and
Cristelli, one morning, during the second week in Janu-
ary, in the shop office.1' On this occasion, Cristelli told
Jackson that he had enough signatures for decertifica-
tion. He asked him if he had changed his mind ,and
would sign, Jackson replied that he had not changed his
mind. Cristelli then stated that Respondent was going to
offer the employees a savings plan, then showed Jackson
his, Cristelli's, own plan, including the savings which he
had accumulated. Cristelli mentioned during this conver-
sation that Respondent would decertify the Union the
following week.
James Hiltachk: Employee James Hiltachk testified
that one morning in mid-December, while he was in the
repair shack, he was approached by Cristelli who said
that he wanted to talk to him. Cristelli then informed
Hiltachk that "they" were having a petition going
around to decertify the Union and asked him if he
wanted to sign it. Hiltachk replied that he would have to
think about it; that it was a pretty big decision to make.
Cristelli also told Hiltachk that Respondent had a savings
plan and that Hiltachk and the other employees would
be eligible for it if they did not have a union.12
Cristelli and Hiltachk had a second conversation be-
tween 3 and 7 days after the first conversation. During
this 'conversation, which again took place in the repair
shack, Cristelli asked Hiltachk if he had made up his
mind about signing the paper. Hiltachk replied that he
9 Cristelli, in his testimony, acknowledged having a conversation with
Jackson at this time outside the shop building in the quarry . He denied
however, the substantive part of the conversation as described by Jack-
son. I credit Jackson.
10 Cristelli acknowledged having a second conversation with Jackson
but denied , once again, the substantive content as described by Jackson. I
credit Jackson.
i l Again Cristelh denied making any of the substantive remarks of
which he was accused . I credit the version of General Counsel's witness.
12 Ibid
thought he would stick with the Union; that he did- not
want to sign it. 13
Several days after their second conversation, Cristelli
and Hiltachk had a third conversation, once again in the
tool shack. Cristelli again _ asked Hiltachk if he had
changed his mind about signing the paper. Hiltachk reit-
erated that he had not but would stick with the Union.
Cristelli showed Hiltachk a copy of his savings plan with
the Company and explained that if the employees decer-
tified the Union, then everybody at the plant who was
not in the Union would be eligible for the savings plan.
He explained further that under the plan, if employees
put 6 percent of their earnings in the savings plan, Re-
spondent would add 25 percent of that 6 percent to their
accounts. Hiltachk agreed that the savings plan was a
good deal but stated that he was not going to sign the
paper; that he thought the employees needed the Union.
Hiltachk discussed this conversation with several other
employees.
Daniel Barnett: Daniel Barnett, an employee of Re-
spondent at the time of the hearing, testified that one
morning in mid-December, Cristelli told him that he
needed to talk to him, in the office, about something im-
portant. Once there, Cristelli told Barnett that he felt
that it was very important that the employees decertify
the Union for the survivability of the Ada plant. He ex-
plained that if the employees decertified the Union at the
Ada plant, Respondent would more likely close the
Okay plant, and keep the Ada plant open.14 Barnett re-
sponded that he needed more time to think about it.ts
Tommy Palmner: Tommy Palmner, an employee of Re-
spondent for approximately 17 years, as of the time of
the hearing, testified that toward the end of December
he had a conversation with Cristelli in the breakroom.
Cristelli had summoned Palmner at the end of the day
shift to come in and talk to him. When Palnmer arrived
in the breakroom, Cristelli said, " I guess you've heard
that I've been approached by five -or six employees ex-
pressing a desire to withdraw from the Union." He then
asked Palmner what his feelings were on the matter.
Palmner replied that he was open and would listen. Cris-
telli said that he thought things would be better for the
Company if it was nonunion; that without the Union, the
Company would be free to do as it pleased, as far as pro-
cedures around the plant were concerned. Palmner re-
plied that it would have to be proved to him that things
would be better before he would consider signing a de-
certification petition. Cristelli then said that he had a sav-
ings program which he would like to show to Palmner.
Apparently, however, he did not do so at the time. Cris-
telli, in closing, asked Palmner to keep their conversation
confidential.) 6
Two days later, Palmner and Cristelli had a second
conversation when Cristelli invited Palmner into his
is Ibid.
14 See McGehee's testimony, supra.
16 Cristelli denied making the statements attributed to hum by Barnett
and gave his own version of the discussion. I credit Barnett.
16 Again, Cristelh denied making the statements attributed to him by
General Counsel 's witness and gave his own version of the discussion. I
credit General Counsel's witness.
252 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
office toward the end of the shift, about 4 p.m. At this
meeting , Cristelli showed Palmner a printout of his per-
sonal savings program and explained that such a program
was only available to nonunion workers. He explained
further that the plan paid 25 percent on the dollar and
how savings could accumulate. He asked Palmner if he
would be interested in signing the decertification paper.
Palmner replied that he would think about it, but at the
time his answer was still no.
Three weeks after their second conversation Cristelli
again approached Palmner while the latter was at work.
Cristelli asked Palmner if he had thought any more about
what they had talked about earlier. Palmner replied that
he still did not want to sign the decertification paper.
Palmner testified to a fourth conversation between
Cristelli and himself which took place on January 16, in
the boiler room, at the beginning of the 4 p.m. shift
when Cristelli called him in to speak alone. Cristelli said
that the following day the Company would announce de-
certification and that they had enough signatures. He
added that he would make an offer to Palmner that he
had not made to anyone else. He said that Palmner
should sign the decertification slip and if he had any
second thoughts about it, later in the shift, he could call
Cristelli and he would take it back, without anyone else
knowing about it. Palmner said, at the time, that he
would think about it, but later told Cristelli that he was
not going to sign for decertification. Cristelli simply said,
"Fine." Pahnner never did sign for decertification but
did discuss his conversation with Cristelli with one or
more of the other employees.
Jim Howell: Jim Howell, an employee of Respondent
for 15 years as of the date of the hearing, testified that
about January 10, Cristelli approached him as he was
coming off his morning break. Cristelli said that he
would like to clarify a rumor that was going around. He
explained that some employees had come to him and
asked him to circulate a petition to decertify the Union.
He asked Howell if he would be interested in signing it.
When Howell declined to sign the petition, Cristelli
stated that Respondent already had enough signatures to
decertify anyway. Howell said that he still thought he
would pass, but asked if it would make any difference in
his working there, whether he signed or not. Cristelli
said that it would have no effect one way or the other.
Howell did not sign the petition but did tell other em-
ployees about this conversation.''
Conclusions
I have found that the incidents described above oc-
curred as General Counsel's witnesses credibly testified.
17 Ibid On January 11 or 12, 1989, according to Cristelli, a meeting
was held which was attended by General Manager Gary Sauer, Plant
Manager Kenneth Hamm, Plant Superintendent Robert Cnstelh, and Re-
spondent's counsel . It was decided at this meeting to withdraw recogni-
tion of the Union. On January 16, 1989, this was done. On January 17,
1989, Respondent unilaterally instituted a pay increase, a savings plan,
and a profit-sharing plan for employees in the unit and unilaterally with-
drew Supplemental Unemployment Benefits from the unit employees.
I find further that Respondent has therefore violated
Section 8(a)(1) as follows-18
1. In October, by Thompson's urging of Morris
McGehee to decertify the Union.
2. In December, by Cristelli's soliciting of McGehee to
decertify the Union; Cristelli's offer to McGehee of par-
ticipation in Respondent's savings plan if he, were to
become a nonunion employee; and Cristelli's statement to
McGehee that the Ada plant had a better chance of stay-
ing open if it were nounion.
3. In January 1989, by Carlisle Hill's soliciting McGe-
hee to decertify the Union.
4. In mid-October, by Cristelli's interrogating Wilson
about how he felt about decertifying the Union and Cris-
telli's statement to Wilson that the Ada plant would have
a better chance of keeping its doors open if the Union
were decertified at Ada.
5. In November, by Cristelli twice soliciting Ishmal
Tatum to decertify the Union and by Cristelli's offer to
Tatum to permit him to participate in Respondent's sav-
ings plan once the Union was decertified.
6. In late November or early December, by Cristelli's
twice soliciting James Jackson to decertify the Union.
7. In January 1989, by Cristelli's again soliciting Jack-
son to decertify the Union.
8. In mid-December, by Cristelli's thrice soliciting Hil-
tachk to decertify the Union and Cristelli twice offering
to permit Hiltachk to participate in Respondent' s savings
plan once the Union was decertified.
9. In mid-December, by Cristelli's soliciting Barnett to
decertify the Union and telling him that the Ada plant
had a better chance of staying open if the Union were
decertified.
10. Toward the end of December, by Cristelli' s inter-
rogating Palmner about his feelings concerning decertifi-
cation; by Cristelli's twice soliciting Palmner to decertify
the Union; and by Cristelli's offering to permit Palmner
to participate in Respondent 's savings plan once the
Union were decertified.
11. In January 1989, by Cristelli' s again soliciting
Palmner to decertify the Union.
12. In January 1989, by Cristelli's soliciting Howell to
decertify the Union.
Having found that the testimony of General Counsel's
witnesses is credible and that the testimony of Cristelli,
consequently, is not, I likewise fmd that Cristelli's uncor-
roborated testimony that 41 employees signed slips indi-
cating a desire to withdraw from the Union is also
untrue. I thus conclude that Respondent had no good-
faith doubt that the Union continued to enjoy majority
status among its employees and that it committed viola-
tions of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) when it withdrew recog-
nition of the Union on January 16, 1989,19 and subse-
quently unilaterally instituted a pay increase, a savings
plan, and a profit-sharing plan for unit employees on Jan-
uary 17, 1989, and withdrew Supplemental Unemploy-
1s Walker Mfg. Co., 288 NLRB 888 (1988); Hearst Corp., 281 NLRB
764 (1986), affd . 837 F.2d 1088 (5th Cir 1988).
i9 Hearst Corp, supra., Howard M. Howes, 290 NLRB 967 (1988).
IDEAL BASIC INDUSTRIES 253
ment Benefits from unit employees on January 17,
1989.20
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Ideal Basic Industries, Inc. is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(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.
3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
unlawfully:
(a) Urging employees to decertify the Union.
(b) Promising employees increased benefits if they
were to abandon the Union.
(c) Threatening employees with plant closure to dis-
courage union support.
(d) Interrogating employees about their union sympa-
thies.
4. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by
(a) Withdrawing recognition from the Union.
(b) Unilaterally instituting pay increases, savings plans,
and profit-sharing plans and withdrawing Supplemental
Unemployment Benefits.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. The Respondent did not engage in any unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint not specifically found
herein.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practice in violation of Section 8 (a)(1) and
(5) of the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to
cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
On these fmdings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed21
ORDER
The Respondent, Ideal Basic Industries, Inc., its offi-
cers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Urging employees to decertify the Union.
(b) Promising employees increased benefits if they
were to abandon the Union.
(c) Threatening employees with plant closure to dis-
courage union support.
(d) Interrogating employees about their union sympa-
thies.
(e) Withdrawing recognition frorn and refusing to bar-
gain with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargain-
ing representative of its employees in the appropriate
unit.
(f) Unilaterally instituting pay increases, savings plans,
profit-sharing plans, or other benefits.
(g) Withdrawing Supplemental Unemployment Bene-
fits.
(h) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining , or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following, affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, bargain collectively concerning wages,
hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of
employment with the Union, as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of all employees in the appro-
priate unit and, if an agreement is reached, embody it in
a signed contract.
(b) On request, revoke any and all unilateral changes
made effective on or after January 17, 1989, with regard
to the wages, hours, and other conditions of employment
of all unit employees and make whole all eligible unit
employees whose SUB pay was discontinued on January
17, 1989, for any losses they may have incurred as a
result of this change.
(c) Post at its facilities in Ada, Oklahoma, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."22 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 17, after being duly signed by an authorized rep-
resentative of the Respondent, shall be posted by the Re-
spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dis-
missed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not spe-
cifically found herein.
20 Texas Petrochemical Corp., 296 NLRB 1057 (1989).
21 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's 22 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation-
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all put- the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
poses Labor Relations Board "