Industrial Steel Products Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 28, 1963

143 N.L.R.B. 336 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
or any term or condition of employment , except as authorized in Section 8(a) (3 )
of the Act.
WE WILL NOT continue to include in our collective -bargaining contract with
the above-named labor organization , or with any other labor organization,
any provision whicih requres membership or application for membership in
such union as a condition of employment , except as authorized in Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT interfere with , restrain , or coerce employees in any other man-
ner in connection with the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form
labor organizations , to join or assist the above-named or any other labor
organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own free
choice and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection or to refrain from any or all such
activities , except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agree-
ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employ-
ment , as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer Milton Frankwick immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his rights and
will make him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of our discrimina-
tion against him.
HRIBAR TRUCKING, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------- ------------ By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
NOTE.-We will notify Frankwick , in the event he is presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States, of his right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the Armed
Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 176 West
Adams Street , Chicago , Illinois, 60603 , Telephone No. Central 6-9660, if they have
any queston concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Industrial Steel Products Company , Inc. and Shopmen 's Local
Union 760, of the International Association of Bridge , Struc-
tural & Ornamental Iron Workers , AFL-CIO. Cases Nos-
15-CA-2162 and 15-110-2548. June 28, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 28, 1963, Trial Examiner Morton D. Friedman issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Inter-
mediate Report. He also found that the Respondent had not engaged
in certain other unfair labor practices and recommended dismissal of
the complaint as to them. He further found that the Respondent had
interfered with the election of July 17, 1962, and recommended that
it be set aside. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-
143 NLRB No. 19.
INDUSTRIAL STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC. 337
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and
Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and the brief, and the entire record
in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial
Examiner.
i Member Rodgers agrees that the election should be set aside , but he does so solely be-
cause the particular 8(a)(1) conduct engaged in here by Respondent interfered with that
election , and he would not find that all Section 8(a) (1) conduct a fortiori interferes with
elections . Further, Member Rodgers would not find the showing of the movie "And
Women Must Weep" a basis for setting aside the election.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER,
REPORT ON OBJECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed September 17, 1962, by Shopmen 's Local Union 760 of the
International Association of Bridge , Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-
CIO, herein referred to as the Union , the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region
of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board , issued a complaint
on behalf of the General Counsel of the Board on October 31, 1962 , against Industrial
Serial Products Company, Inc., Respondent herein , alleging violations of Section
8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. Sec. 151,
et seq. ), herein called the Act . In this duly filed answer Respondent , while admitting
certain allegations of the complaint , denied the commission of any unfair labor
practices.
Pursuant to order of the Regional Director on behalf of the Board, the proceeding
referred to above was consolidated with Case No. 15-RC-2548 wherein a representa-
tion petition in behalf of Respondent's employees had been filed by the Union on
May 21, 1962 , and an election held on July 17, 1962; said consolidation being for
the purpose of holding a hearing and taking evidence in connection with certain
objections filed by the Union in respect to conduct affecting the results of the afore-
said election.'
Pursuant to notice a hearing of the consolidated cases was held before Trial
Examiner Morton D . Friedman at Shreveport , Louisiana, on January 8, 9, and 10,
1962. All parties were represented and were afforded full opportunity to be heard,
'At the hearing, the Respondent moved to dismiss the representation hearing on the
Union's objections on the ground that the Regional Director had not complied with the
requirements of Section 102.69 of the Board 's Rules and Regulations in that he failed to
make a formal report on objections finding that questions of fact requiring hearing exist
While it is true that the Regional Director did order this case to hearing without issuing
a report on objections or a formal determination that questions of fact exist , I do not
find that he is required to make a formal finding and , in the absence of a showing to the
contrary , I presume regularity of this proceeding and that the Regional Director did make
a finding that questions of fact existed before ordering bearing and consolidation with the
unfair labor practice proceeding . In any event, because I granted Respondent 's motion
for a bill of particulars in the objections case, the Respondent was apprised fully of the
nature and details of the objections and cannot now claim prejudice especially in view of
the fact that the matters were fully litigated and the Respondent had ample opportunity
to question witnesses , present evidence , and take other steps to defend itself against the
allegations of the objections.
338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to introduce relevant evidence, to present oral argument, and to file briefs with me.2
Briefs were filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent. Upon consideration
of the entire record, including the briefs of the parties, and upon my observation
of each of the witnesses,3 I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a Louisiana corporation, with its office and principal place of
business located in Shreveport, Louisiana, is engaged in the fabrication and sale of
structural and reinforcing steel. During the 12 months immediately preceding the
issuance of the complaint herein, a representative period, the Respondent, in the
course and conduct of its business, purchased steel and other materials valued in
excess of $100,000, which were shipped to the Respondent in the State of Louisiana
directly from points outside the State of Louisiana. During this same period, Re-
spondent sold and shipped products of a value in excess of $100,000 from points
within the State of Louisiana directly to points outside the State of Louisiana. Upon
these conceded facts I find the Respondent to be an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to
assert jurisdiction herein.
It. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Shopmen's Local Union 760 of the International Association of Bridge , Structural
& Ornamental Iron Workers , AFL-CIO, the Union herein , is conceded to be a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act, and I so find.
III. THE ISSUES
1. As to the unfair labor practice proceeding: Whether the Respondent through
its officers and supervisors interrogated, threatened, and made promises of benefit to
its employees in a manner constituting interference, restraint, and coercion in viola-
tion of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
2. As to the objections to the election proceeding: In addition to the issues set
forth in paragraph 1 above, (a) whether the Employer made an antiunion speech
within 24 hours before the election, and (b) whether a motion picture shown the
employees who attended a barbecue given by the Respondent within 24 hours before
the election was slanderous and created such a hostile atmosphere as to preclude
the employees' free choice in the election .4
IV. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PROCEEDING
A. Background-sequence of events
In the spring of 1962, the Union began an organizing campaign among the Re-
spondent's employees .5 On May 21, 1962, the Union filed a representation petition
which the Respondent's president, Jeff M. Stewart, announced to the employees in a
speech on June 11.6
The Regional Director, on behalf of the Board, issued his Decision and Direction
of Election on June 29, 1962.
2 After the close of the hearing, the Respondent made and filed a motion to correct the
transcript. There being no opposition, the motion Is In all respects granted and made part
of the formal record In this proceeding.
2 Unless specifically indicated to the contrary, any credibility evaluation I make of the
testimony of any witness appearing before me Is based, at least In part, upon his de-
meanor as I observed it at the time the testimony was given Cf. Retail Clerks' Inter-
national Association, AFL-CIO, Local 219 (National Food Stores, Inc ), 134 NLRB 1680,
footnote 3, Bryan. Brothers Packing Company, 129 NLRB 285. To the extent that I indi-
cate that I do not rely upon or reject In part or entirely the testimony of any given wit-
ness, it is my Intent thereby to indicate that such part or whole of the testimony, as the
case may be, is discredited by me. Jackson Maintenance Corporation, 126 NLRB 115,
footnote 1, enfd. 283 F. 2d 569 (C.A. 2).
* The Issues pertaining to the objections to the election proceeding only and which do not
apply to the unfair labor practice proceeding are issues raised by two of the objections to
the elections which were not made subjects of the complaint filed by the Regional Director.
6 An earlier attempt to organize the employees was made about a year before this cur-
rent campaign and resulted In an election which the Union lost.
6 Unless otherwise specified all dates are in 1962
INDUSTRIAL STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC. 339
Between the date of the receipt of the notice of the Union's representation petition
and the date of the election, the Respondent availed itself on a number of occasions
of the opportunity to express its objections and opposition to the Union, which,
of course, it had the right to do. Both Stewart and Vice President Gordon Marsalis
addressed the employees either in groups or singly. The Respondent, as did the
Union, distributed literature informing the employees of its sentiments. The cam-
paign ended with the Respondent holding for its employees a barbecue supper on
the company premises the evening before the election at which a motion picture, the
subject of one of the Union's objections to the election, was shown.
The election was held as scheduled on July 17, and the Union lost by a vote of
29 to 26. On July 24, the Union timely filed and served objections to conduct
affecting the election claiming that: at the barbecue the Respondent made an anti-
union speech at a time which violated Board precedent; the motion picture shown
at the barbecue was slanderous and created a hostile atmosphere; the Respondent
promised economic benefits if the employees would vote the Union out; the Re-
spondent threatened the employees with economic loss and retribution if the Union
were to be voted in; and a supervisor interrogated employees as to how they intended
to vote. The last three objections named were made the subject of the complaint
in this unfair labor practice proceeding. The first two objections were not in-
corporated in the complaint and were treated separately at the hearing in the
representation case, and are treated separately infra.
B. The conduct of Vice President Gordon Marsalis
Gordon Marsalis is the vice president of the Respondent. On or about June 25,
Marsalis addressed a group of employees in the paint bay of the plant? After the
speech, employee Robert Evans asked Marsalis why the Union kept coming back
to organize and Marsalis answered either to the effect that the union officials wanted
to fatten their pockets to buy their wives Cadillacs or that the Union had an invest-
ment from the previous year's attempts at organization and that the only way the
Union could get a return on the investment would be from individual employees'
dues .8 However, that afternoon at about quitting time at the plant gate Marsalis
addressed Evans and told him that perhaps he, Marsalis, did not answer Evans'
question properly in the morning and that he knew some reasons why the Union
continued to try to organize. He told Evans that he had some literature in his
office which he could show Evans concerning the Union that would really surprise
Evans. Then he told Evans that if he got the Union out of there he would give
Evans a little raise but that "It won't be enough to jump up and clap your heels
about." 9
Sometime in June or early July, Marsalis called employee James Cheatham to the
coffeeroom at the plant and had a conversation with him in which the Union was
discussed. Marsalis told Cheatham that he wanted the latter to understand the
talk that Stewart had given to all of the employees with regard to the Union's
petition for certification. He told Cheatham that he was telling him this so that
there would be no confusion of mind as to Cheatham and as to what Stewart had
stated. He further told Cheatham that Stewart and he, Marsalis, had talked this
union matter over seriously and at length and that they were going to take a firm
stand against the Union; furthermore that they would fight the Union with every
legal means possible and that they were not going to let some outsider come in
and push them around. He further stated to Cheatham that during the past years
he had given the men good steady employment even when the backlog of work did
not justify it. He told Cheatham further that if by chance the Union were voted
in, the Company did not have to agree to any demands of the Union that were not
to the best interest of the Company. He additionally informed Cheatham that if
the Company did not agree to such demands the only recourse the Union would
have would be to call the men out on strike and that if they did that the Company
would still have to operate, as contracts would have to be fulfilled. This would
7 There is no allegation that this speech was objectionable or violative.
8 It is not necessary to resolve which of these versions represents the actual statement
since neither is alleged to be violative.
B From the credited testimony of Evans. Although Marsalis denied the afternoon con-
versation in its totality, and although the Respondent argues that the language ascribed
to Marsalis did not sound like that Marsalis would use, and that Marsalis was too astute
to suggest a salary raise under such a situation, I nevertheless credit Evans because from
my observation of him I find that he was a reliable witness and I cannot conclude that
he fabricated this incident out of the whole cloth
717-672-64-vol. 143-23
340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
force the Respondent to hire replacements inasmuch as economic strikers could
be permanently replaced. He further informed Cheatham that the latter was
free to discuss the matter with other men in the shop.io
However, he also asked Cheatham if the latter had talked to the "boys" about
the Union and Cheatham replied that he had. Marsalis further stated that the
Union could get the employees in bad trouble if they went out on strike and asked
Cheatham not to vote for it. He told Cheatham that the latter should continue
talking to the employees about the Union and get them on his side.il
A few days after the interview in the cofteeroom Marsalis handed to Cheatham
a list of six names explaining that it set forth the names of the men to whom
Cheatham was to talk against the Union.12 Cheatham did speak to the men in
accordance with Marsalis' instructions. Two or three times after Cheatham re-
ceived the list, Marsalis passed by the paint bay where Cheatham worked and
inquired of Cheatham if the latter was still talking to the men.13
As Cheatham left Marsalis' office he was instructed to send in employee 0. B.
Jenkins. In accordance with instruction, Jenkins reported to the coffeeroom where
Marsalis, after greeting him, inquired if anyone had been talking to him about the
Union and, more specifically, it employees Albert Taylor or James Cheatham had
spoken to him about the Union. Jenkins answered to the effect that Cheatham
had told him that if Jenkins did not vote for the Union he would have a job for
a long time, but if he voted for the Union he would not have a job because the
Company would close the plant. Then Marsalls asked Jenkins if Albert Taylor
had brought Jenkins a card to sign and Jenkins replied in the negative. Then
Marsalis asked Jenkins whether the latter had been listening to Cheatham and
Jenkins replied, "Yes." Marsalis told Jenkins that if Jenkins listened to Cheatham
he would have a job for a long time and that if he did not listen to Cheatham he
probably would not have a job. Marsalis also told Jenkins, much as he had told
Cheatham, that the Respondent had done everything it could for its employees in
years gone by, that it had given them steady employment and numerous other
benefits and that he did not think that there was a place in the organization for the
Union. Marsalis further stated, as he had to Cheatham, that the Company was
going to oppose the Union as strongly as it legally could, and intended, if the Union
wanted to fight, to give them a good fight. He also informed Jenkins as he had
Cheatham that if the Union came in and made demands that the Company could
not meet, the only thing the Union could do was to go on strike and economic
strikers could be permanently replaced. He went on to tell Jenkins that the latter
was always free and had the right to speak to his fellow employees out in the shop.14
10 From the credited testimony of Marsalls.
11 Although Marsalls denies this part of the conversation and although Cheatham was
rather vague on cross-examination with regard to dates and to some of the other details
of the conversation, I credit Cheatham's version of this portion of the conversation
12 Cheatham evidently was confused as to the exact time this list was given to him.
Actually it was probably given to him a few days after the meeting in Supervisor Reddy's
office as fully related infra.
13 From the credited testimony of Cheatham which I credit over Marsalis' denial. The
Respondent contends that Cheatham is not a credible witness because his recollection of
certain details was vague and also because part of his pretrial affidavit was inconsistent
with his testimony at the hearing. I have closely examined the pretrial affidavit and com-
pared it to the testimony given at the hearing. I do not find that the inconsistencies are
material or such as to render Cheatham's testimony unreliable.
14 From credited portions of the testimony of Jenkins and Marsalis. I do not credit
Marsalis' denial that he never asked Jenkins if anyone had been talking to him about the
Union, or that Albert Taylor's or James Cheatham' s names were mentioned, or that he
asked Jenkins if anyone had brought him a card to sign. While it is true that Jenkins'
testimony was vague as to such details as exact dates just as the testimony of many of the
General Counsel's witnesses was, I cannot help but note the general characteristics of the
General Counsel's witnesses. They were, for the most part, illiterate or almost illiterate
individuals, coming from the humbler walks of life and undoubtedly unsure of themselves
as witnesses. They were definitely not men who were called on to make public appearances
or whose work required continuous mental effort. On the other hand, Marsalis was
obviously a well-educated, articulate individual. While Marsalis' versions of the con-
versations which occurred were far more detailed and far better expressed, I do not be-
cause of that find it necessary to credit Marsalls ' versions over the halting, inarticulate
versions presented by the General Counsel's witnesses On the contrary, I find that gen-
erally, and especially in the case of Jenkins, the General Counsel's witness' testimony was
INDUSTRIAL STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC. 341
Also separately summoned to talk to Marsalis in the plant coffeeroom during
the month of June or early July were employees John Datcher, Ashton Mosely,
and Albert Taylor, and Taylor's wife, who worked in the Respondent's office as a
maid. In each of these conversations Marsalis repeated his theme that: he wanted
to make sure each employee understood Stewart's talk; the Company was going
to oppose the Union's efforts to organize the shop with every legal means possible;
the Company had been good to its employees and kept them working even when
there was only sweeping work to do; the Respondent did not have to agree, in case
the Union came in, to anything that was not to the best interest of the Company
and that all the Union could do in such case was to go on strike; if the Union did
go on strike, the employees, being economic strikers, could be replaced perma-
nently, and the employees had a right to talk to their fellow employees about the
Union. Thus, Marsalis followed a pattern in his talks to these individuals.
However, in each case additional statements were made by Marsalis depending
upon the employee or employees to whom he was talking. Thus, in the case of
Datcher he asked what Datcher had heard about the Union. He also instructed
Datcher to get a group of employees together and talk to them and tell them what
Datcher thought about the Union. This was after Marsalis had asked Datcher
whether the latter was in favor of the Union and Datcher answered to the effect
that he was not. Marsalis also told Datcher that if the Union was successful and
there were times when the men did not have anything to do but sweep, the men
would be sent home.15
In the case of Mosely, Marsalis in addition to the usual speech also asked Mosely
if he would talk to other employees concerning the Union and that if he did
Marsalis would "make the ball bounce" for him. Marsalis also told Mosely that
be was considering a plan whereby each month an employee would be interviewed
and rated with a possible wage increase in view and if the man deserved a raise he
would get it. In the case of Albert Taylor the conversation again was pretty
much the same except for several additions. Thus Marsalis asked Taylor whether
the latter knew anything about the Union and "what was going on out there."
Taylor replied that he did not know whereupon Marsalis told him that some of the
men must know something because they signed cards to support an election. Then
Marsalis told Taylor that he did not know whether Taylor had signed. He also
told Taylor that he would not put up with a union. Taylor asked Marsalis what
the latter wanted him to tell the men when he went back and Marsalis instructed
him that he should tell the men that if they should happen to vote the Union in,
they would not have a job with the Company any longer. Bertha Taylor, the wife,
when questioned about what she knew about the Union, spoke up and said that the
first she heard of the union situation was during the afternoon that Stewart talked
to all the employees and later that evening when Albert came in and mentioned
it to her. She said that she told Albert to keep his mouth shut and stay out of
the mess and "let each tub sit on its own bottom." 15
Three days after his coffeeroom interview with Datcher, Marsalis again spoke
to Datcher, this time in the cutting shed where this employee worked. Marsalis
asked Datcher what the "boys" thought about the Union and Datcher told Marsalis
that he did not have anything to worry about. On election day Datcher and
Marsalis again engaged in a conversation 17 before the polls opened. Marsalis
told Datcher that they had missed him at the barbecue the night before and Datcher
explained that he could not get there whereupon Marsalis told Datcher that if
the Company won the election it would buy Datcher a barbecue. Then Marsalis
faulty, not because of any individual lack of truth or inability to remember the important
facts which the witness tried to present, but mainly because of inability to either under-
stand questions, or inability to articulate answers.
15 From the credited testimony of Datcher For the reasons set forth in the preceding
footnote, I do find that Datcher's lack of recollection as to dates and other details makes
him an unreliable witness That he at first denied he made a pretrial statement was due
to lack of understanding the question put to him
16 From portions of the credited testimony of both Albert Taylor and Gordon Marsalis.
I find that Marsalis' version of the story of the meeting was accurate so far as it went
but that he omitted those elements which reflected the threats to the employees that they
would not have a job with the Company if the Union was voted in and wherein Marsalis
asked about the union activity in the plant
" I do not find it material whether the statements made to Datcher by Marsalls were
made in one or in two conversations on election morning, nor do I find that even if
Datcher's reco]lection may be faulty as to the fact that there were two Conversations, his
testimony is nevertheless credible.
342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
told Datcher that things looked bad for the Union as the Union could not get any-
one to represent it. He then asked Datcher if the latter were still with him to which
Datcher answered in the affirmative. Marsalis then asked about the other men
and Datcher answered that the last thing that they had told him they were (pre-
sumably meaning that they were with Marsalis).18
Twice during the week before the election, Marsalis came to the stockyard where
employee Leroy Edwards worked and engaged the latter in conversations. On the
first occasion, Marsalis told Edwards that the best thing for Edwards to do was to
talk to the men to try to vote the Union out and that if the Union did succeed the
employees were liable to find a "for sale" sign on the Respondent's premises In
the second conversation Marsalis told Edwards that he wanted the men to try to
get together to vote the Union out.i9
On the day before the election, Marsalis had a conversation with employee
Burnice Davis, who testified that Marsalis reminded him of the list of six employees
which Marsalis had given Davis sometime earlier. He asked Davis if he had
spoken to the employees and Davis said he had "got everybody lined up." Marsalis
testified that he recalled the conversation with Davis when he told Davis that every-
thing pointed to the company victory with the Respondent getting 95 percent of
the vote to which Davis answered "fine." In the light of the fact that I found
Davis' testimony incoherent in this respect and found his memory so vague in many
other matters, I credit Marsalis' version of this conversation.
About 1 week before the election Marsalis spoke to employee James Taylor,
a crane operator, while the latter was at work. Marsalis told Taylor that he had
heard that the "boys" were going to get together and vote the Union out. Taylor
affirmed that this was so. Then Marsalis reminded Taylor of the long time that
Taylor had operated the crane and said, ". . . if you vote for the Union you won't
be operating the crane." Taylor rejoined with the statement that he was for the
Company and not the Union.20
Marsalis also spoke to employee Henry L. Mayes, a welder, on the morning of
the election. After asking Mayes why the latter had not come to the barbecue
the evening before, Marsalis asked what Mayes was "going to do about this mess
out here." Mayes refused to tell Marsalis, whereupon Marsalis stated, "Well, I
have never been a man to be bullheaded and stubborn, but if the Union comes in
I believe I could be as stubborn as anybody." 21
On a date about the middle of June, a meeting was held between Marsalis and a
number of the employees in the office of a Mr. Reddy, a plant supervisor. This
meeting was called not by Marsalis but by employees Bill Gray and Hugh Tucker.
Besides Marsalis, present were employees Hugh Tucker, Albert Taylor, Jack Culver,
an employee named Morris, James Cheatham, John Datcher, A. R. Scott, Burnice
Davis, Bill Gray, and Supervisor Reddy. Gray told Marsalis that the employees
assembled wanted to talk to him and Marsalis asked the nature of the talk. Either
Gray or Tucker then spoke up and said that he had been in favor of the Union,
19 From the credited testimony of Datcher . The Respondent contends that in each of
the conversations other than the one which took place in the coffeeroom, Datcher testified
that another employee, Drayton, was present and yet the General Counsel did not call
Drayton to testify in confirmation of Datcher's testimony. I do not infer from this that
if Drayton had testified he would not have supported Datcher. Drayton could have been
called by the Respondent.
10 From the credited testimony of Edwards The Respondent contends Edwards was not
a credible witness because he admitted on cross-examination that the substance of what
Marsalis said to Edwards was that Marsalis hoped everyone voted against the Union and
because Rigby, the union agent, was present at the union hall when Edwards gave his pre-
trial statement to the Board representative. While it is true that the import of Marsalls'
statements to Edwards was that he (Marsahs) wanted the Union to be defeated, this does
not render the witness' testimony untrue or even contradictory Moreover, the presence of
the union agent at the giving of the pretrial statement does not render the testimony in-
credible in the absence of evidence that Edwards was told by the agent what to say or
that coercion was exercised Edwards impressed me as a forthright witness and he was
most firm an cross-examination in his repetition of the statement by Marsahs that the
Company might be "for sale" if the Union won the election.
20 From the credited testimony of James Taylor I do not credit MarSalis' statement
that all he said to Taylor was that he would like Taylor's support in the coming elec-
tion Taylor impressed me as a truthful witness and the remark attributed to Marsalis
was not dissimilar from those he made to other employees, supra.
21 From the credited testimony of Mayes as corroborated in part by the testimony of
Marsalis who denied that he said anything about being bullheaded and stubborn.
INDUSTRIAL STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC. 343
even went so far as to sign a card, but after talking it over with his wife he decided
it was the wrong thing to do. J. P. Morris then said that he was against the Union
also and did not think the Union had any place in a company like Respondent's.
Taylor said that the Respondent should have a meeting of all the colored employees
and that Marsalis should get together and talk with them.22 Culver said some-
thing should be done to get the Union settled and suggested each man present take
the names of a few men in the shop and see if they could not by this means vote
the union issue down. Marsalis expressed his approval and told the men assem-
bled that he would be happy if they would do it. Culver asked Marsalis if the latter
would have the list of names, to be given him by Culver, typed and passed out
Marsalis consented and this was done.
During the meeting also , Culver said that there had been a rumor going around
the shop that if the men voted the Union in they were all going to lose their jobs.
Marsalis stated that he also had heard that rumor and that he wanted to stop the
rumor immediately because there had been an election the year before and if
the men would recall not a single man had been fired after the election; that he
wanted all of them to get that straight and put a stop to the rumor.23
Subsequent to the meeting Marsalis did give a list of names to Cheatham, Davis,
and Datcher. Later these lists were picked up by Marsalis and Stewart. Marsalis,
as heretofore set forth, from time to time inquired how the campaign was progress-
ing and instructed the men to advise the employees on their lists to vote against
the Union
C. Conduct of President Jeff Stewart
About 3 days before the election, at about noon, President Stewart engaged em-
ployee Robert Evans in a conversation in the stockyard. Stewart asked Evans what
the latter thought about the Union and Evans answered that he had not thought
about it very much. Stewart then asked Evans if he thought that the Union
would win, and Evans answered that he did not know, that he could not say.
Finally Stewart asked him if he was still with the Company and Evans answered
"yes sir" and went back to work 24
Sometime around the middle of June, Stewart called employee Willie Robinson
into the plant coffeeroom to have a talk with him. Stewart asked Robinson if the
latter knew anything about the Union and Robinson answered that he did not know
anything until Stewart had read the letter from the Labor Board telling of the
representation petition. During the conversation Robinson asked Stewart to loan
him $60 and Stewart said that when he, Stewart, got over his own troubles he
would talk about the witness' troubles 25
22 This meeting with the colored employees in the paint bay is •related supra
"From the testimony of Marsalis as confirmed in part by the testimony of Burnice
Davis and Albert Taylor Because of discrepancies in the versions of this meeting between
the testimonies of Davis and Taylor, the only employees who testified as to this meeting,
I accept, for the most part, Marsalis' version of what occurred at the meeting. Moreover,
neither Datcher nor Cheatham, who were also present at the meeting, said anything on
their examination by the General 'Counsel with regard to this meeting. While I have in
other places in this report discredited Marsalis, I have likewise found Davis to be an un-
reliable witness. Though I have previously credited Albert Taylor, I do not believe that
in this particular instance his testimony was as reliable as that of Mlarsalis Accord-
ingly, I do not accept Taylor's statement to the effect that when the purpose of the meet-
ing was announced Marsalis stated that anybody who was "for the Union" should get out
of the room, or Davis' testimony that Marsalis stated that if the men voted for the
Union the gate would be locked and somebody else would be hired
24 From the credited testimony of Evans. I have heretofore credited Evans and find no
reason to discredit him in this instance Although I was impressed with Stewart, I am
convinced that Evans' version of the conversation is the more reliable This is not to say
that I do not credit Stewart's version to the extent that Evans told Stewart that he was
his brother's keeper,or that Evan,, did expi ess appi eciation that Stewart had contacted the
police department for him about a year before and that this had materially assisted in the
recovery of Evans' car which had been stolen. However, I believe that Stewart also en-
gaged in the conversation as set forth above
21 From the credible testimony of Willie Robinson. Although I believe that the con-
versation also covered the matters set forth in Stewart's version thereof, I credit Robin-
son's testimony also I do not credit Stewart's denial of the matters covered in Robinson's
testimony. Here again the Respondent would have the witness discredited because his
pretrial affidavit was prepared at the union hall in the presence of the union agent For
344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
D. The conduct of Supervisor Lawrence Bass
Sometime before the election , Lawrence Bass, the shop foreman , spoke to em-
ployee James Cheatham. Bass said to Cheatham that he had heard that Cheatham
"got the Union going." Cheatham answered Bass that he had not. Then Bass
said that it would be better for Cheatham to leave the Union alone because it would
cost Cheatham his job. Bass also told Cheatham that if Cheatham could get the
men to vote the Union out, Bass would see to it that Cheatham would get a raise.26
About 3 weeks before the election Bass had a conversation with Leroy Edwards,
a laborer. Bass asked Edwards "who started the Union and the union mess."
Edwards answered that he did not know, upon which answer Bass said it would be
best for the men to get together and "get the union out." Bass also warned that
the men had better stop "the union mess" because if they "fooled around none of
them might have jobs." Edwards assured Bass that he would do his best to try
to talk to the other men and keep the union out.
Two weeks after this original conversation, Bass again engaged Edwards in
conversation and jokingly asked the latter if he had paid his union dues. This
question evidently was made in passing while Edwards was working in the stock-
yard. Nothing else was said in this conversation, except that Edwards said that
there were not any union dues to pay because "no union was getting in." 27
Bass had two conversations with employee Burnice Davis. The first conversa-
tion took place about 3 days before Stewart announced that he had received a letter
from the Labor Board concerning the Union's petition for representation. At the
time, Davis was working in the paint bay and Bass said to him, "Burnice, when did
you all get the Union started around here." Davis answered that he did not know
anything about the Union and Bass said to him, "You know damn well you do."
Davis then answered that Bass had better see somebody else.28
About 2 weeks before the election Bass had a conversation with James Taylor.
Bass told Taylor that he had heard that Taylor was going to vote for the Union
and told Taylor that Taylor had been with the Company for quite a while but
that "if you vote for the Union you won't have no job." 29
the reasons heretofore set forth I do not find Robinson to be an unreliable witness on that
score
Burnice Davis also testified as to certain matter in a conversation allegedly with Stewart
on the day before the election Accoi ding to Davis, Stewart asked him, "Burnice, how you
got those boys going"" To which Davis allegedly replied, "I think we going to win it"
And Stewart said , "We don't need a union " Inasmuch as I have discredited Burnice
Davis heretofore, I do not find him to be a reliable witness in this instance I credit
Stewart 's denial that this conversation ever occurred.
11 From the credited testimony of James Cheatham. As I heretofore stated I was very
impressed with Cheatham as a witness. 1 do not, as urged by the Respondent, believe
that Cheatham was not credible in this respect because he insisted that the conversation
occurred 3 days before the election Respondent contends that inasmuch as the election
was held on July 17, and that 3 days before that was a Sunday , Cheatham ' s testimony is
pure fabrication . I do not believe that the inability to exactly recall a date renders the
witness incredible under the circumstances of this case ,
=i From the credited testimony of Leroy Edwards . As I have heretofore stated I was
impressed with Edwards' testimony with respect to his conversation with Marsalis I also
credit him with respect to this conversation with Bass and do not credit Bass ' denials
21 From the credited testimony of Burnice Davis Although I have discredited Davis
elsewhere in this report and have considered him an unreliable witness , his testimony here
to the effect that Bass wanted to know when he "got the Union started" is very similar
to the testimony of other employees, supra, with regard to what Bass asked them. Because
this testimony is substantiated by other employees in that there is established a pattern of
a type of question that was asked by Bass, I credit Davis despite his otherwise unreliable
memory. On the other hand I do not credit Bass ' denial . However, I do credit Bass to
the extent that I believe that he had no further conversation with Davis concerning the
Union on the day before the election as testified to by Davis.
^ From the credited testimony of James Taylor. I do not credit Bass' denials of this
conversation or Bass' version of this conversation The Respondent contends that Taylor's
testimony was merely Taylor's impression of what had occurred and that it apparently
derived from the fact that Bass did mention to Taylor that Taylor had been fired by the
Company some years back and that Bass had reminded Taylor that he, Bass, had helped
Taylor get Taylor's job back for film. Aly observation of Taylor was such that I do not
believe that he was so confused or otherwise unreliable as to convert what Bass claims
were innocent remai Ics to remarks of coercive import.
INDUSTRIAL STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC. 345
On the morning of the election, in the paint bay, Bass had a conversation with
employee Henry L. Mayes. The conversation was concerned in part with the
coming election and Bass asked Mayes what the latter was going to do about it.
Mayes replied that he was not going to tell Bass one way or the other to which Bass
replied that it did not make any difference to him as he would think just as much
of Mayes if he voted for the Union as he would if he voted against it. However,
he told Mayes that if the latter voted for the Union "they can make it hard on you "
Then the discussion turned to speculation as to how many votes each thought the
Union would get. Mayes stated that he thought that the Union would get about
what it did in the election that was conducted the year before-around eight votes.
Bass said that he believed the Union would only get six votes but that he would
make Mayes a 25-cent bet on it and if Mayes guessed closer to the number of votes
than Bass, Bass would give Mayes a quarter but if Bass guessed closer to the actual
number of votes, Mayes would have to give him a quarter 30
About a week and a half before the election Bass had a conversation with em-
ployee Harold G. Haynes at the burning table where Haynes was working. He
was at Haynes' place of work because Haynes had burnt some steel plates 1 inch
short of specification. Bass told Haynes that the mistakes that Haynes had made
were very costly and the Company could ill afford them-any more than the Com-
pany could afford to have a union . Haynes stated that he realized that the Company
could not afford to have a union; he did not think they would have one and he was
not having anything to do with it himself.31
Approximately a week and a half before the election, Albert Taylor was asked
by Bass whether Taylor had gotten Bass' message (no explanation of this message)
and when Taylor answered "Yes," Bass said, "Albert you have a lot to lose. Mr.
Gordon and Mr. Jeff informed me that you were head of the Union and I told
them I would come talk with you." Then Bass made some reference to employee
Bill Gray. He told Taylor that if Mr Marsalis or Mr Stewart asked Taylor if
Bass had talked with him, Taylor should answer "Yes" because Bass was going
back to the office to tell them, Marsalis and Stewart, that Taylor was "okay." 32
Bass also had a conversation with Don Hattaway, an employee, and asked Hatta-
way if the latter had made up his mind about the Union. Bass did not ask Hattaway
which way the latter was going to vote.
E. The conduct of Russell H. Ausmus
Ausmus is the chief draftsman for the Respondent Evidently Ausmus was un-
easy about his future in the event the Union came into the plant. Accordingly,
one day about a week before the election Ausmus approached employee Albert
Taylor and told Taylor that he had heard that Mr. Stewart and Mr. Marsalis had
heard that Taylor was the union leader in the shop. Taylor denied this; then
Ausmus told Taylor that he, Taylor, had a lot to lose because Taylor's wife worked
in the office and that while Ausmus could not predict what would happen to
Taylor's wife if the Union should come in, he could not say whether or not the
Company would let Taylor's wife work under those circumstances. Ausmus ex-
plained that this was because there were papers on the desk in the office and Mrs
Taylor could possibly read them and give the information to the union people.
Ausmus went on to say that he was concerned that if the Union came in and if
there was a strike it would probably last 30 days and that Ausmus could not stand
a 30-day layoff. Ausmus explained that he was concerned about his job and that
Taylor should be concerned about his job, too. He begged Taylor to think it over 33
"From the credited testimony of Mayes . There is no contention that the making of
the bet or the conversation concerning the betting was in and of itself a violation of
the Act
"'From the credited testimony of Bass . Although I have not credited Bass in other
instances, I do so here because I have found that Haynes was an unreliable witness. My
observation of Haynes on the stand and his inability to fix the date of the conversation
in his pretrial affidavit but his sudden ability at the hearing to fix with certainty the date
of the conversation makes me suspicious of Haynes' veracity. Accordingly, I credit Bass
and accept his version of the conversation Nor do I credit Haynes' testimony that there
was a second conversation . Rather, I credit Bass ' denial of a second conversation with
Haynes
33 From the credited testimony of Albert Taylor For the reasons stated before, I credit
Taylor and do not accept Bass' version of this conversation
33 From the credited testimony of Albert Taylor as corroborated in part by the testimony
of Ausmus The Respondent contends that Taylor is not a credible witness and that most
of his testimony was derived from the actual conversation , then taken out of context and
346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
F. Conclusionary findings with respect to the complaint case
Upon the facts as set forth above, I conclude and find as follows:
1. By telling employee Robert Evans that if the Union were defeated he would
give Evans a raise, Marsalis made an unlawful promise of benefit.
2. By inquiring of employee James Cheatham, on two separate occasions, whether
Cheatham had solicited fellow employees, as instructed, to vote against the Union,
Marsalis interrogated and coerced Cheatham and interfered with his Section 7
rights 34
3. By asking employee 0. B. Jenkins whether fellow employees Albert Taylor
or James Cheatham had spoken to Jenkins about the Union; by asking Jenkins if
Taylor had given him a card to sign; by telling Jenkins that if he (Jenkins) listened
to Cheatham he would have a job for a long time and if he did not listen he would
probably not have a job, Marsalis unlawfully interrogated Jenkins and threatened
him with discharge.
4. By instructing employee Datcher to talk against the Union to fellow employees;
by telling Datcher that if the Union came in the men would be laid off when work
became slow, Marsalis unlawfully coerced Datcher and threatened him with reduc-
tion in working hours.
5. By asking employee Mosely to talk to other employees against the Union and
promising to "make the ball bounce for him ," Marsalis made an unlawful promise
of benefit and unlawfully solicited Mosely to use his influence to induce other em-
ployees to reject the Union.35
6. By asking employee Albert Taylor whether Taylor knew anything about the
Union and "what was going on out there" and by instructing Taylor to tell the men
that if the Union was voted in the men would not have a job with the Company
any longer, Marsalis unlawfully interrogated Taylor about the union activity of
Taylor and other employees and threatened Taylor with loss of employment.
7. By asking Datcher what the "boys" thought about the Union and by promis-
ing Datcher a barbecue if the Union was defeated and then by asking Datcher if
the latter was still with him, Marsalis unlawfully interrogated Datcher as to his
union activity and desires and those of other employees and unlawfully made a
promise of benefit.
8. By asking employee Edwards to talk to his fellow employees to try to vote
the Union out and telling Edwards that if the Union won the election the employees
were liable to find a "for sale" sign on the premises, Marsalis unlawfully solicited
Edwards to induce other employees to reject the Union and unlawfully threatened
Edwards with possible dischrge.
9. By telling employee James Taylor that if Taylor voted for the Union, he
would no longer be operating the crane, Marsalis unlawfully threatened Taylor
with discharge.36
10 By asking employee Henry L. Mayes what the latter intended to do "about
this mess out here" Marsalis unlawfully interrogated Mayes 37
11. By inquiring from time to time of Datcher, Cheatham, and Taylor as to how
they were coming with the names on the lists given them, Marsalis unlawfully
solicited them to use their influence to induce other employees to reject the Union.
12. By asking employee Robert Evans what the latter thought about the Union
and if he was still with the Company, President Stewart unlawfully interrogated
Evans about his union activities and desires.
13. By asking employee Willie Robinson what the latter thought about the Union,
Stewart unlawfully interrogated Robinson.
misconstrued, misunderstood, or misrepresented I do not agree While it is true that
Taylor, like most of the General Counsel's witnesses, was rather vague as to dates and
other events upon cross-examination, taking into consideration the background and educa-
tion of Taylor and the other General Counsel witnesses, I believe that they remembered
those matters directed toward their welfare although commonplace matters such as dates,
places, and other items did not make sufficient impression on them to be remembered at
the late date at which the hearing was held Accordingly, I credit Taylor's testimony as
set forth above.
34 Alamo Express, Inc., 119 NLRB 6.
ffi See Alamo Express , Inc, supra
se This is the only incident which could be interpreted as threat of transfer However,
I do not read that into the threat and therefore will recommend dismissal of the allega-
tion of the complaint alleging unlawful threat of transfer
s" I do not find any violation in Marsalis ' statement about being "bullheaded."
INDUSTRIAL STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC. 347
14. By telling employee James Cheatham that he had heard that Cheatham had
"`got the Union going"; by telling Cheatham that if the latter did not leave the
Union alone it would cost Cheatham his job; and by telling Cheatham that if
Cheatham could get the men to vote the Union out, he would get Cheatham a
raise, Supervisor Lawrence Bass unlawfully interrogated Cheatham, threatened him
with discharge, and made an unlawful promise of benefit.
15. By asking employee Leroy Edwards who started the Union and the union
mess; by telling Edwards it would be best for the men to get together to vote the
Union out; and by warning Edwards that the men had better stop the "union mess"
because "if they fooled around none of them might have jobs," Bass unlawfully
interrogated Edwards and threatened him with discharge.
16. By asking employee Burnice Davis "when did you all get the Union started
around here," Bass unlawfully interrogated Davis.
17. By telling employee James Taylor that "if you vote for the Union you won't
have no job," Bass unlawfully threatened Taylor with discharge.
18. By asking former employee Henry L. Mayes what the latter was going to
do about the coming election, and by telling Mayes that if he voted for the Union
"they can make it hard on you," Bass unlawfully interrogated Mayes and threatened
him with discharge.
19. By telling Albert Taylor that he (Bass) was informed by Stewart and Marsalis
that Taylor was head of the Union, and by telling Taylor that he had a lot to lose,
Bass unlawfully interrogated and threatened Taylor.
20. By telling employee Albert Taylor that he did not know what would happen
to Taylor or Taylor's wife's job if the Union came in and there was a strike, Su-
pervisor Russell H Ausmus threatened Taylor with the loss of employment and
with loss of Taylor's wife's employment.
By the acts of its officers and supervisors summarized above, the Respondent
engaged in interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
However, I do not find violative any of the other conversations or parts of con-
versations as set forth in section IV A through E, above, which have not been
enumerated in these conclusions and findings 38
V. THE OBJECTIONS TO THE ELECTION
As heretofore related, the Union's last three objections to the election were made
the subjects of the charges and complaint heretofore filed herein and are discussed
in the preceding portion of this report. The Board has recently held that similar
unfair labor practices which were violative of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act were,
a fortiori, conduct which interferes with the exercise of a free and untrammeled
choice in an election.39 Accordingly, upon these findings alone I would recommend
that the election be set aside However, because these findings are subject to review
by higher authority I will also discuss the Union's first and second objections.
The Union's first objection alleges that the Respondent made an antiunion speech
at the barbecue party given by the Respondent on the evening before the election
which time was violative of Board precedent. However, there is no evidence in the
record of such alleged speech and I therefore find that the Union's first objection
is without foundation.
The Union's second objection alleges that the motion picture shown at the
barbecue was slanderous and created a hostile atmosphere and that the Respondent
distributed similar literature. The motion picture shown was entitled "And Women
Must Weep" It was stipulated at the hearing that this was a print of the same
film that was the subject of a recent Board case, Plochman and Harrison-Cherry
Lane Foods, Inc., 140 NLRB 130, in which case the Board held that the film ex-
ceeded the bounds of permissible campaign propaganda and an interference with
the Board-conducted election held the following day. The election was set aside and
a new election ordered.
The Respondent contends, however, that the film in the instant case was not shown
under circumstances similar to that of the film shown in the Plochman case in that
in the Plochman case the employees were shown the film on company time and
were compelled to attend, whereas in the instant case the film was shown at a
barbecue to which the employees were invited after working hours and there was
Thus I find that the meeting In Reddy's office in which the men decided to talk to other
employees against the Union was entirely voluntary on the part of the employees and that
Marsalis' participation therein did not constitute restraint or coercion. His hearty ac-
ceptance of the employee plan was a protected expression of his desires.
31 Playskool Manufacturing Company, 140 NLRB 1417.
348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
no compulsion to attend. Respondent argues that the impact, therefore, is not the
same as in the instance of a "captive audience" as in the Plochman case. I do not
find merit in the Respondent's contention.
The circumstances surrounding the showing of the film materially differs from
the circumstances in the Plochman case only in one respect. Here the attendance
at the barbecue was voluntary. However, here, as in the Plochman case, the film
was shown on election eve with no opportunity to the Union to answer. No effort
was made by the Respondent to explain to the audience that the film was enacted
by professional actors or that it was staged and not an actual representation of
what occurred at the plant. Nor did the Respondent explain that the union in-
volved in the film was not the same one that was seeking to represent the Respond-
ent's employees. Under these circumstances, the fact that attendance was volun-
tary and that less than all of the employees viewed it can make no difference. The
Board has already held that under similar circumstance the film was intimidatory
and palpably misleading I have no choice but to follow Board precedent and find
that the showing of the film under the circumstances here presented exceeded the
bounds of permissible campaign propaganda 40
With regard to the campaign literature, I will not burden this report to set it out
in full. Suffice it to say, that the letters mailed to the employees merely state the
Respondent's views that it did not want the Union in the plant and that it did not
have to agree to all of the Union's terms They also informed the employees that
in the event of a strike the Respondent could replace economic strikers. Moreover,
the Respondent correctly paraphrased Section 8(d) of the Act. I find nothing in
the literature which exceeded permissible campaign propaganda 41 Moreover, the
Union had ample opportunity to and did circulate its own literature which met
and answered the Respondent's propaganda.
VI. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
Respondent's activities found to be unfair labor practices in section IV, above, oc-
curring in connection with the operations of Respondent described in section 1, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
VII. THE REMEDY
Having found, as set forth above, that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, set forth below, designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act. One of the more basic rights conferred upon employees by Section 7
of the Act is the right to freely, and without coercion or restraint from his em-
ployer, express his choice in a Board-conducted election designed to determine the
wishes of the employees with respect to a collective-bargaining representative. Since
it has been found that Respondent interfered with this right, an order commensurate
with the violations found, and designed to assure to Respondent's employees the
opportunity to fully and freely exercise the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7
of the Act, is appropriate.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Industrial Steel Products Company, Inc., is an employer within the meaning
of Section 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2( 6) and (7) of the Act.
40 The Respondent also argues that to impose the restraint of the Plochman case on
the present Respondent would be equivalent to the retroactive application of law because
the film In the instant case was exhibited to the employees 5 months before the Board
issued the Plochman case and other, earlier Board precedent sustained the right of em-
ployees to view this film I find no merit In this contention The Board has in the past
held violative acts which Board precedent had established as lawful. Both administrative
agencies and courts are free to overturn previous rulings even though the new decision
works a hardship on the parties involved, See S E C. v. Chenery Corp , 332 U.S 194 ;
Great Northern Ry. v Sunburst Co., 287 U.S 358, 364; Davis, "Administrative Law,"
West Pub Co., 1951, pp 558-559
41 See Sylvania Electric Products, Inc., 106 NLRB 1210, 1211; Seven-Up Bottling Com-
pany, Inc, 140 NLRB 611.
INDUSTRIAL STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC. 349'
2. Shopmen's Local Union 760, of the International Association of Bridge, Struc-
tural & Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon
the entire record in this proceeding, I recommend that Industrial Steel Products
Company, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating employees concerning their union membership, desires, and
activities and the union membership, desires, and activities of other employees;
threatening employees with discharge or reduction of hours of employment if the
Union should win the election; promising employees economic benefits if the Union
should lose the election; threatening the employees with plant closure should the
Union win the election, and soliciting employees to use their influence to induce
other employees to reject the Union.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations,
to join or assist the above-named Union or any other labor organization, to engage
in other concerted activities for purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of
the Act:
(a) Post in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted, at its place of business in Shreveport, Louisiana, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." 42 Copies of said notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region of the National Labor Relations
Board, shall, after being signed by a duly authorized representative of Respondent, be
posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained for at least 60 con-
secutive days thereafter in such conspicuous places. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of
this intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what steps Respondent has taken
to comply herewith.43
It is further recommended that except as hereinabove found, the complaint should
be dismissed, and that, insofar as the matter is before me for recommendation, the
election of July 17, 1962, should be set aside.
^' In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , the words "As
Ordered by " shall be substituted for the words "As Recommended by a Trial Examiner
of" in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a decree of
a United States Court of Appeals , the words "A Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals, Enforcing an Order of" shall be inserted immediately following the words "As
Ordered by "
93 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , this provision
shall be modified to read , "Notify said Regional Director , in writing , within 10 days from
the date of this Order , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that-
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees with respect to their membership in,
views concerning, or sympathies for Shopmen's Local Union 760, of the Inter-
national Association of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-
CIO, or any other labor organization.
350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT by threat of reprisal or promise of benefit induce or encourage
our employees to vote for or against , or by such means solicit our employees to
induce other of our employees to vote for or against , the above-named Union
or any other labor organization in any election conducted by the National
Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization ; to form, join,
or assist any labor organization ; to bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choosing ; to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection ; or to refrain from any
or all such activities , except to the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment , as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with the right of our employees to
make a free and untrammeled choice in any election ordered by the National
Labor Relations Board.
All our employees are free to become , remain , or to refrain from becoming or
remaining, members of any labor organization , except to the extent that this right
may be affected by an agreement conforming to the provisions of Section 8(a)(3)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
INDUSTRIAL STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, T6024
Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans , Louisiana, 70113,
Telephone No. 529-2411 , if they have any question concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions.
Radiator Specialty Company and United Rubber , Cork , Linoleum
and Plastic Ỳorkers of America , AFL-CIO . Cases Nos. 11-CA-
1891, 11-CA-1950, and 11-CA-2086. June 28, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 29, 1963, Trial Examiner Samuel M. Singer issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Inter-
mediate Report. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown].'
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In-
1 Respondent' s request for oral argument before the Board is hereby denied, as the
record and the exceptions adequately present the issues and positions of the parties.
143 NLRB No. 42.