Int'l Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 11

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsApr 8, 1965

151 N.L.R.B. 1490 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

1490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD agent and asked to have an election; and (2) why the Union has declined to go to an election but has chosen, instead, to have the past prove the present Any answer or answers to either question must be speculative. But realities of life in a putty factory or any industry suggest that not all employees who have been required to join a union will voluntarily come forward, at a public hearing-or sign their names to a decertifi- cation petition-to register their desire for another or no bargaining agent And it is equally reasonable to speculate that a union may prefer to let the Board handle its hot chestnuts with tongs of technicalities instead of going to an election. A suspicion is not alien in the setting described above that perhaps the Union doubts that it could win an election today. In any event, I believe and conclude that the circumstances of this case, including the expressed willingness of the Respondent to negotiate a renewal of a contract, its execution subject only to proof at a Board election, sufficiently establish a "good faith" doubt to warrant a recommendation that the complaint be dismissed and that the employees themselves-whose rights the Act was designed to protect-be given an opportunity to express themselves at a secret election. In short, I conclude and find that the Respondent has not violated Section 8(a)( I) and (5 ) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions , and upon the entire record in the case, I recommend that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union' No. 11, AFL-CIO (General Telephone Company of California] and Communications Workers of America , AFL-CIO International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 11, AFL-CIO and General Telephone Company of Cali- fornia.' Cases Nos. 21-CC-612. 21-CC-613, and 21-CC-7441. A pril 8, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER On November 30, 1964, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer issue(] his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respond- ent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommencinig that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action. as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. General Telephone Company of California filed cross-exceptions and a brief in answer to the Respondent's exceptions. Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins]. The Board has reviewed the rulings 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 entire record in the case, including the Trial Examiner's Decision. 1 Referred to herein as the Company 151 NLRB No. 145. INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 11 149 the exceptions, cross-exceptions, and briefs, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's tindings,2 conclusions,3 and recommendations sub- ject to the modifications indicated below 4 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the -National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board adopts as its Order the Recominended Order of the Trial Examiner and orders that the Respondent International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 11, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Decision as modified below : 1. Delete paragraph 1 of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, and substitute the following : "1. Cease and desist from (a) engaging in, or inducing or en- couraging any individual employed by Kiely, Boyar, Cardinal, Long Beach, Hoffman, or any other person other than General Tele- 2 The Trial Examiner inadvertently found that General Telephone Company of Califor- nia began operations at the Lime Street project on April 7, 1963, though this in fact occurred on April 7, 1964. The Trial Examiner's Decision is hereby amended to reflect the proper date. 3 The Charging Company excepts to the Trial Examiner's finding that a dispute existed between Respondent and the Company The exception is not only inconsistent with facts set forth in the complaint, but also conflicts with the stated position of the Geneial Counsel Thus , while the exception relates to the Company ' s theory, first advanced after the close of testimony , that it was a neutral employer and as such could not be the sub- ject of lawful primary action, the General Counsel conceded at the hearing that no viola- tion would exist if the economic pressure against the Company had not exceeded traditional bounds of primary activity In this posture of the case, and viewing the exception as a belated attempt to amend the complaint , we accept the Trial Examiner ' s conclusion that the Respondent acted in furtherance of a primary dispute with General Telephone Cf Bakery Drivers Local No 276 , International Brotherhood of Teamsters , etc (Capital Service, Inc.), 106 NLRB 107, 108 Under these circumstances , our conclusions herein , and the provisions of our Order , insofar as they exclude from their prohibitions coercive action against General Telephone in connection with such dispute , are limited to the specific projects and in- cidents which are the subject of this proceeding ' Although we agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent ' s activity at the Del Mar project violated Section 8 ( b) (4) (i) and ( ii) (B), thereby violating the terms of an earlier settlement agreement , we disagree with , and do not adopt , his further finding that Re- spondent ' s picketing of the Lime Street project was secondary and unlawful . The recoid does not establish either inducement of individuals or restraint or coercion of any person apart from this latter picketing which conformed in all respects with the Moore Dry Dock standards for legitimate common situs picketing . Sailors' Union of the Pacific (Moore Dry Dock Company ), 92 NLRB 547 , 549 Accordingly , we find, contrary to the Trial Examiner , that Respondent ' s conduct at the Lime Street project was lawful primary activity protected by the proviso to Section 8(b) (4) (B ), and we hereby dismiss the complaint insofar as it alleges a violation based on Respondent ' s conduct at Lime Street Member Fanning, in agreeing that Respondent engaged in secondary and unlawful activity at the Del Mar project , is of the opinion that only the oral inducement of the neutral employees was unlawful and that the picketing , which is separable from the oral inducement , was not unlawful . Member Fanning , therefore , would order Respondent to cease and desist from such unlawful inducement , but would not require that Respondent cease what he considers to be lawful picketing . Alexander Warehouse & Sales Company, 128 NLRB 916 ; Member Fanning ' s dissenting opinion in Chauffeurs, Teamsters , and Help- ers Local Union No. 17 5 , etc ( MeJunhin Corporation ), 128 NLRB 522 , at 528 , affd. 294 F. 2d 261 (CAD C.) 1492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD phone, to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of their employment to perform services for their employers, and (b) threatening, coercing or restraining Kiely, Boyar, Cardinal, Long Beach, Hoffman, or any other person other than General Telephone, where in either case an object thereof is to force or require the afore- said employers to cease doing business with General Telephone or any other person." 2. Modify the provisions of the notice attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision marked "Appendix" to conform to the above modification in the Recommended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding with all parties represented was heard before Trial Examiner William E. Spencer in Los Angeles, California, on July 9 and 10, 1964, upon a con- solidated complaint of the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, the latter herein called the Board, dated May 28, 1964,1 and answer of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. It, AFL-CIO, herein called the Respondent or Respondent IBEW. The complaint alleged in substance that the Respondent, in furtherance with its dispute with General Telephone, violated Section 8(b)(i) and (ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act. Upon the entire record, my observation of witnesses, and consideration of briefs filed with me by each of the parties, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS General Telephone, with general offices in Santa Monica, California, is engaged in Southern California, as a public utility, in the business of receiving and trans- mitting by telephone intrastate and interstate communications and furnishing other communication services. In the course and conduct of its business, General annually transmits interstate telephone communications valued at substantial amounts, and annually does a gross volume of business in excess of $100,000. Kiely Corp. (herein called Kiely), Boyar Keesler Investment Company (herein called Boyar), C. R. Langslet Construction Co. (herein called Langslet), and Long Beach Construction Co. (herein called Long Beach) are engaged in California as general contractors in the building and construction industry At all times material herein Kiely has been engaged in the construction of apartment buildings at Cali- fornia Avenue and Burnett Street, Signal Hill, California (herein called the California Avenue project), and Kiely has subcontracted the electrical work at this project to Cardinal Electric (herein called Cardinal), an electrical contractor engaged in the building and construction industry. At all times material herein Boyar has been engaged in the construction of houses at Montair Park, at Montair and Arbor Road, Long Beach, California (herein called the Montair Park project). At all times mate- rial herein Langslet has been engaged in the construction of apartment buildings at Fourth and Lime Streets, Long Beach, California (herein called the Lime Street project), and Long Beach has been engaged in the construction of a housing project on Del Mar Avenue, Long Beach, California (herein called the Del Mar project). At the Del Mar project, Long Beach subcontracted the electrical work to Hoffman & Son, Inc. (herein called Hoffman), an electrical contractor in the building and con- struction industry. 1 The charge in Case No 21-CC-612 was filed March 21, 1963, by Communications Work- ers of America, AFL-CIO, herein called CWA ; the charge in Case No 21-CC-613, and an amended charge, were filed, respectively, March 22 and 27, 1963, and the charge in Case No. 21-CC-741 was filed April 13, 1964, by General Telephone Company of Cali- fornia, herein called General or General Telephone INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 11 1493 At all times material herein General has been engaged, pursuant to arrange- ments made with Kiely, Boyar, Langslet, and Long Beach, in performing telephone prewiring service and installing telephone outlets at the California Avenue, Montair Park, Lime Street, and Del Mar projects General has assigned the said work to its own employees who are not members of or represented by Respondent. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Respondent IBEW and CWA are, each of them, labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES This case is grounded in a labor dispute between Respondent IBEW and General Telephone. In furtherance of this dispute the Respondent on or about March 18, 1963, and again on March 19, 1963, threatened a neutral employer, Kiely, with picketing at a California Avenue project, and on March 19, 1963, did picket the project. Also in furtherance of its dispute with General Telephone, the Respondent orally instructed, directed, and appealed to individuals employed by Employer Cardinal to cease performing services for Cardinal at the said project. Again in furtherance of its dispute with General Telephone, on March 11, 1963, the Respond- ent threatened Boyar, an employer, with a work stoppage at a Montair Park project on which it was engaged with General Telephone and other employers. On June 30 , 1963, the Board's Regional Director approved settlement agreements in the above matters (Cases Nos. 21-CC-612 and 21-CC-613) for the purpose of remedying Respondent's unfair labor practices described above. This much is admitted. What is here contested is that the Respondent violated the terms of the settlement agreement with subsequent illegal acts of picketing in furtherance of its dispute with General Telephone, and that Respondent's subsequent picketing of common situs jobs on which General Telephone was engaged , admitted, violated Section 8(b)(4)(i ) and (ii )( B) of the Act. Respondent 's defense, in sub- stance, is that the said picketing engaged in subsequent to the settlement agreement was solely area standards picketing such as has been approved by the Board. The picketing, here alleged to have been in violation of the settlement agreement and illegal, occurred at what is here called the Lime Street and the Del Mar construc- tion projects , respectively , on which General Telephone was engaged in installing telephone prewiring and telephone outlets. General Telephone began operations on the Lime Street project on April 7, 1963, about 9 a.m. About 11 a.m. General Telephone 's foreman on the project , Roger Ford , went to his truck to get some equip- ment and saw two pickets carrying signs which read: GENERAL TELEPHONE DOES NOT PAY PREVAILING WAGES NOR MAINTAIN THE PREVAILING WORKING CONDITIONS OF LOCAL 11 I.B.E W. UNION Ford asked one of those picketing what the picketing was for and was directed to see the Respondent Union's business agent, James R. Shannon , who was then in front of the building on which General Telephone, and other contractors and subcontractors were engaged . Ford asked Shannon what the picketing was for and it is his credited testimony that Shannon replied that General Telephone employees did not belong to the Union. When Ford protested that these employees were 100 percent union, Shannon said that they did not belong to the Building Trades Council. As a matter of fact, General Telephone employees were then working under a bargaining agree- ment negotiated and executed by General Telephone and Communication Workers of America. Following a conversation between Ford and his supervisor, and a further conversation with the superintendent of the construction project who told him they couldn't have a work stoppage on the project, Ford instructed General Telephone employees that as soon as they had finished their lunch to pack up their tools and leave the project. Shannon had said that as soon as General Telephone employees left the project the pickets would be pulled off. This was done. On the following day General Telephone's employees returned to work at the Lime Street project. About 11 a.m. pickets appeared. Two electricians, not employees of General Telephone, then left the job. Bob McClendon, General Telephone's person- nel administrator, asked the pickets why they were picketing and they replied by point- ing to the picket sign. After lunch, Warren, the electrical contractor on the job, told McClendon that the electricians would not resume work until General Telephone's employees were gone; said that he was in trouble with Respondent Union because it was felt he had not tried hard enough to contract the job; asked McClendon if General 1494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Telephone would contract the job to him. McClendon said he had no authority to do this. The general contractor's superintendent, Glover, then approached, told McClendon that he thought it was agreed General Telephone's employees would not resume work on the project until the electricians had finished, and McClendon replied that he knew of no such agreement. Glover said that General Telephone's employees were causing him trouble by being on the job and would have to leave. At this juncture, two representatives of Respondent Union drove up in a car and parked across the street from the project. McClendon, Warren, and Glover crossed the street and addressed Dial, one of the occupants of the car. In reply to Glover's inquiry, Dial said the pickets would remain on the job as long as General Telephone's employees were there. Glover replied that General Telephone employees were all union, to which Dial responded that it was a Building & Trades' job and "telephone people" did not belong to the Building & Constructions Trades Council; that telephone people were doing electricians' work. At the conclusion of the conversation Glover told McClendon that he could not afford to have the job shut down, so McClendon would have to pull his men off the job and they could resume work when the elec- tricians finished. Dial said that if General Telephone employees left the job he would take the pickets off the job and if they came again he might resume picketing. McClendon then instructed his foreman, Ford, to take his employees off the job. The next incident of picketing with which we are here concerned occurred on April 10 at the Del Mar project where General Telephone was engaged in prewiring and associated work. Other crafts, including electricians, were on the job. After work had started, Fred Harris, construction superintendent, observed the union steward for the electricians leave the job. Harris asked the foreman for the electrical subcontractor if there would be any union trouble with the telephone employees on the job. Harris testified that at about midmorning he saw a man, whom he later identified as Respondent's business agent, Shannon, drive his car through the project; stop at one of the buildings where electricians were working and engage in conversa- tion with them; and then leave the project. Immediately, according to him, the electricians began putting their tools away preparatory to quitting work. Harris then drove to the main entrance of the project and saw that there were two men picketing the project. Also present there was Shannon. Harris asked Shannon why he drove past him onto the project without stopping to tell him that the job was to be picketed. Shannon replied that he could not discuss the matter, that it might be construed as "coercion" if he discussed it. He said the job would be picketed until General Telephone employees left it. When about 11:45 a.m. General Telephone employees left the job, Shannon motioned to the pickets to leave. When the pickets left, elec- tricians who had been sitting on the curb at the main gate, reentered the project and resumed working. Shannon denied that he drove into the project at all on this occasion and denied that he spoke to any employee at work on the project. Concluding findings Respondent IBEW picketed the Lime Street and Del Mar projects in furtherance of its dispute with General Telephone and it scrupulously refrained from picketing except when General Telephone employees were actually at work on the projects. The wording of its picket signs, identical at all times, was consistent with area- standards picketing which the Board has approved, beginning with International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers' Union of America, Local No. 41, AFL- CIO (Calumet Contractors Association and George DeJong), 133 NLRB 512. How- ever, the wording of a picket sign , while indicative of is seldom conclusive as to its object, and it is the object of the picketing in which we are primarily interested. I know of no area standards case in which the employees of the picketed employer were working under a bargaining agreement negotiated between their employer and a certified labor organization, nor do I expect to hear of one. I do not propose to discuss the wage differentials, etc., existing between employees here represented by CWA and employees represented by Respondent IBEW, or whether they perform work which normally would fall under the same job classifications. Such a discussion would necessarily, on the basis of evidence received here, be inconclusive and fruitless, and, in any event, superfluous, inasmuch as I am convinced that the labor dispute between Respondent IBEW and General Telephone which gave rise to the picketing, was General Telephone's performance of certain work which the IBEW believed should be contracted to electrical contractors who employed members of the IBEW. This is established by the uncontested testimony that Respondent's Dial , when asked by General Contractor Glover why Respondent was picketing the Lime Street project, INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 11 1495 replied that General Telephone's employees were performing electrician's work and did not belong to the Building & Construction Trades Council, and Dial's query as to why General Telephone had not subcontracted the work to the electrical contractor on the job and further statement that it had contracted the electrical work to elec- trical contractors in other situations and should do so now. I am furher convinced, on the entire evidence, that an object of Respondent's picketing of both the Lime Street and the Del Mar projects, was to cause neutral employers engaged on the common situs jobs in question to cease doing business with General Telephone, or with each other, as the case may be, in order to require the contracting of work performed by General Telephone employees to electrical contractors and subcontractors whose employees were affiliated with the Respondent. The reiteration of Dial and Shannon, in the presence of neutral employers as well as General Telephone, that the projects in question were being picketed because the latter's employees were not members of a union affiliated with the Building & Construction Trades Council, and Dial's pointed suggestions that General Telephone subcontract the work it was doing to the elec- trical contractor, show very plainly that the pressure exerted by the picketing was for the purpose of disrupting the contractual relationships then existing between General Telephone and neutral contractors or subcontractors on the job. That the picketing induced, and was intended to induce, employees of neutral employers, particularly those of electrical contractors or subcontractors on the job, to quit work while the pickets were on the job, is equally clear. Employees of the electrical contractors left their jobs at both the Lime Street and Del Mar projects while the picketing was in progress, the latter only after Shannon had driven into the project and spoken to them. Shannon's denial that he drove onto the project and spoke to electricians on the job is not credited. The testimony of Harris, the construction superintendent, on the point was exact as to circumstances attending his first observation of Shannon as the latter drove onto the project, as well as his later conversation with Shannon out- side the project entrance gates when he asked Shannon why he had not informed him that the project was to be picketed before he made his contact with the electricians on the job-exact and convincing, as Shannon's version of the same incident was not. That the electricians left their jobs immediately after being contacted by Shannon, though they could not see the picket signs from where they were at work, gives rise to the inescapable inference that he informed them of the picketing and as a result of that information they quit work. Respondent's argument that they quit work because it was near their lunchtime might have taken on some substance if it had called the employees in question to testify and they had verified its claim, but lacking such verification and on the undisputed testimony that the electricians in question had been sitting on the curb at the main gate at the time Shannon motioned the pickets to leave and then reentered the project and resumed working, it must fail. On the entire evi- dence, it is found that the Respondent by its picketing of the Lime Street and Del Mar projects, engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(b)(4) and (ii)(B) of the Act, and thereby violated the settlement agreement of June 30, 1963. Accordingly, it is additionally found, as alleged in the complaint, that the Respondent, in furtherance of its dispute with General Telephone and in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (u) (B) of the Act, threatened a neutral employer, Kiely, with picketing a construction project and did picket the project; orally instructed, directed, and appealed to individuals employed by Cardinal, a neutral employer, to cease performing services for Cardinal at the said project; and threatened Boyer, a neutral employer, with a work stoppage at another common situs project on which it was engaged with General Telephone and other employers. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent as set forth above, occurring in connection with the operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial rela- tion to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act it is recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to remedy the unfair labor practices and to effectuate the purposes of the Act. The nature and extent of the violations make a broad order appropriate. 1496 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Employers , as described in section I, above, are employers engaged in commerce, and Respondent is a labor organization , all within the meaning of the Act. 2 By the conduct described in section III, above , Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact , conclusionary findings , and con- clusions of law, and on the entire record in the case , it is recommended that Re- spondent , its officers , representatives , and agents , shall: 1. Cease and desist from ( a) engaging in, or inducing or encouraging the employ- ees of Kiely , Boyar, Cardinal , Langslet, Long Beach , Hoffman, or any other employer other than General Telephone , to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of their employment to perform services for their employers , and (b ) threatening, coercing, or restraining Kiely , Boyar, Cardinal , Langslet, Long Beach, Hoffman, or any other employer other than General Telephone , where in either case an object thereof is to force or require the aforesaid employers to cease doing business with General Telephone or any other person. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its business offices and /or meeting halls, copies of the attached appli- cable notice marked "Appendix ." 2 Appropriate copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 21, shall , after being duly signed by an author- ized representative of the Respondent named therein , be posted by each Respondent upon receipt thereof and be maintained for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by each Respondent to insure that said notice is not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision , what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.3 It is further recommended that unless Respondent IBEW shall within 20 days from receipt of this Decision notify said Regional Director , in writing , that it will comply with the foregoing Recommended Order, the National Labor Relations Board issued an order requiring it to take the aforesaid action. 2 If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words " the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner," in the notice If the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the notice shall be further amended by substituting the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order " for the words "a Decision and of der " 3 In the event this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , this provision shall be modified to read " Notify said Regional Director , in writing , within 10 days lion) the date of this Order , what steps each Respondent has taken to comply hereiiith" APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION No. 11, AFL-CIO Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT engage in , or induce or encourage the employees of Kiely Corp., Boyer Keesler Investment Company, C . R. Langslet Construction Co., Long Beach Construction Company, Cardinal Electric, Hoffman & Son, Inc., or the employees of any other employer other than the General Telephone Company of California , to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of their employment to perform any services for their respective employers , where an object thereof is to force or require the aforesaid employers to cease doing business with the General Telephone Company of California or any other person. WE WILL NOT threaten , coerce , or restrain Kiely Corp ., Boyer Keesler Invest- ment Company , C. R Langslet Construction Co, Long Beach Construction Company, Cardinal Electric, Hoffman & Son, Inc , or any other employer or person other than the General Telephone Company of California, where an METAL CRAFT COMPANY 1497 object thereof is to force or require the aforesaid employers to cease doing business with the General Telephone Company of California or any other employer or person. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION No. 11, AFL-CIO, Labor Organization. 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 at 849 South Broadway, Los Angeles, California, Telephone No. 688-5204, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Metal Craft Company and International Union , United Auto- mobile , Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America , (UAW) AFL-CIO. Case No. 7-CA-4766. April 9, 196: DECISION AND ORDER On January 12, 1965, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re- spondent 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 his attached Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision with a supporting brief, the Charging Party filed an answering brief, and the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a brief in support thereof and in answer to Respondent's exceptions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Brown]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Decision, the exceptions, cross-exceptions, briefs, and the entire rec- ord in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner except as modified herein.' ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts, as 'The record indicates and the Board finds that on or about June 24, 1964, by reading to the employee audience a letter purportedly asking why Clinansmith, an employee of many years, had given his allegiance to the Union, singling him out in the audience, and inviting him to reply, the Respondent coercively interrogated employee George F. Clinansmith concerning his union activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1). 151 NLRB No. 148.