Laars Engineers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 20, 1963

142 N.L.R.B. 1341 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

LAARS ENGINEERS , INC. 1341
WE WILL NOT maintain or continue to maintain a profit-sharing plan for
our employees which requires as a condition precedent to participation in the
plan and its benefits that employees forgo representation by the Union, or
other labor organizations, for purposes of collective bargaining.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to join or assist Local 329, United Service Employees
Union, affiliated with Building Service Employees Union, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from
any and 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 Act, as modified by
the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL amend our profit-sharing plan, known as Melville Confections,
Inc. Profit-Sharing Plan, by eliminating from the definition of "eligible em-
ployees," in article III (9) the words "not represented by a union designated
as the bargaining agent for the employee." Said clause, accordingly, shall
hereafter define an "eligible employee" as "a regular full-time employee of the
Company."
All our employees are free to become or remain or to refrain from becoming
or remaining members of Local 329, United Service Employees Union, affiliated
with Building Service Employees Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion, except to the extent that this right may be affected by an agreement in con-
formity with Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
MELVILLE CONFECTIONS, 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, Midland
Building, 176 West Adams Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60603, Telephone No. Central
6-9660, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
Laars Engineers, Inc. and International Association of Machin-
ists, AFL-CIO. Case No. 21-CA-4995. June 20, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 22, 1963, Trial Examiner Herman Marx issued his In-
termediate 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 Intermedi-
ate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the In-
termediate Report together with a supporting brief.
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 Rodgers, 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-
142 NLRB No. 146.
1342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
termediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner except as noted herein.'
ORDER
The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the
Trial Examiner.
I Contrary to the Trial Examiner, Member Rodgers would find nothing in the Respond-
ent's preelection letter constituting interference, restraint, of coercion within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. Instead, be would find that the letter, In pointing out
to the employees their present benefits as compared with the benefits obtained by the
Union In plants it represented, is within the constitutional right of "free speech" and is
protected by Section 8(c) of the Act. Accordingly, he would dismiss this allegation of
the complaint
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The complaint , as amended , alleges in substance that the Respondent, Laars
Engineers, Inc. (herein also called the Company ), has violated Section 8 ( a)(1) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. 151 et seq .; also called
the Act herein ), by threatening employees with job and other economic losses, and
promising them economic benefits, in order to influence them to vote in a representa-
tion election against a labor organization , International Association of Machinists,
AFL-CIO ( herein also called the Union ); and by accelerating the date of a wage
increase for its employees in order to defeat efforts by the Union to organize them.'
The Respondent has filed an answer which , in material substance , denies the com-
mission of the unfair labor practices imputed to it in the complaint.
Pursuant to notice duly served by the General Counsel upon each of the other
parties, a hearing upon the issues in this proceeding has been held before Trial
Examiner Herman Marx at Los Angeles, California . All parties appeared at the
hearing, the General Counsel and the Respondent doing so through respective coun-
sel, and the Union through a business representative ; and were afforded a full op-
portunity to be heard , examine and cross-examine witnesses , adduce evidence, file
briefs, and submit oral argument . I have read and considered the respective briefs
of the General Counsel and the Respondent filed with me since the close of the
hearing. The Union has not filed a brief.
Upon the entire record , and from my observation of the witnesses , I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. NATURE OF THE COMPANY 'S BUSINESS ; JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD
The Company is a corporation ; maintains a place of business , including a manu-
facturing plant , in North Hollywood , California ; is there engaged in the business of
manufacturing hot-water boilers; and is, and has been at all material times, an em-
ployer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
During the year preceding the issuance of the complaint , the Company, in the
course and conduct of its business operations , sold manufactured products valued
in excess of $50,000 to customers located outside of California , and shipped such
products from its said place of business to points outside California . By reason of
such sales and shipments , the Company is, and has been at all material times, en-
gaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and 2(7) of the
Act. Accordingly , the Board has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding.
' The complaint was Issued on November 9, 1962, was amended on December 4, 1962, and
is based upon a charge filed by the Union with the National Labor Relations Board on
September 27, 1962. Copies of the complaint, the amendment thereof , and the charge have
been duly served upon the Respondent
LAARS ENGINEERS, INC. 1343
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
As the complaint alleges, and the answer admits, the Union is, and has been at
all times material to this proceeding , a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Prefatory statement
The Company employs approximately 65 persons . While the record contains few
details of the plant's supervisory structure , it is evident that operations at the establish-
ment, including the work of the employees , are subject to overall supervision by the
Company's president, Avy L. Miller.
The facilities at the Respondent 's place of business include an automobile parking
lot which is used by employees and is separated from the manufacturing plant by a
driveway . Cars leave and enter the lot at two places, one of them the driveway lust
mentioned , and the other a "normally opened " gate some 60 to 75 feet distant from
the driveway . The plant has a large door (described by a witness as about the size of
"a double garage door") facing the parking area , and both entrances to the lot are
within range of vision of a person looking through the doorway toward the lot
entrances.
The Company has no collective -bargaining relations with any union , but for the
past 3 or 4 years it has dealt from time to time with a group called the Employees'
Committee , which acts as representative of the employees , and consists of three of
their number , one from each of the plant's production departments.
The Respondent granted a general wage increase to all its production employees
in April 1961 According to Miller, the Company "review[ s] the wage situation
every year , approximately , and if there has been a round of wage increases, generally,
and particularly in our industry , we match it or better it"; and the sense of testimony
by Miller is that the general increase was the result of such an annual survey which,
Miller stated , "[n]ormally takes us about two months or something , or perhaps a
month or something."
On July 24, 1962 , at a meeting in Miller 's office between management personnel,
including Miller and Tom Clark, general manager of the plant , and the Employees'
Committee , members of the latter group stated that they had read newspaper reports
of wage increases at various plants, and that they "felt that an increase was overdue."
The management acknowledged that there had been such reports, and promised to
look into the matter by means of a comparative wage survey by Clark among the
Company's competitors , and to make an adjustment "if it was indicated " by match-
ing or bettering "the industry 's increases."
On July 30, 1962, toward the end of the work shift , two representatives of the
Union stationed themselves in the vicinity of the plant , one at each of the parking
lot entrances , and gave employees a kit as they left the premises , either on foot or
by car , upon completion of their workday. The kit consisted of a folder colored
red, white , and blue, containing information about employees ' rights under the Act;
and material describing advantages of unionization claimed by the labor organization,
and requesting the employee receiving the kit to execute and mail to the Union a
form , enclosed in the kit , which would have the effect , upon execution, of designat-
ing the Union as the signatory 's bargaining representative . At the time of distribu-
tion of the kits, the plant entrance facing the parking lot was open , and there was
no obstruction to visibility between the doorway and the parking lot entrances.
On August 8, 1962, Miller met in his office with the Employees ' Committee, and
told the latter that all production and maintenance employees would be given a
5-percent increase in their wages , and that that "would be adjusted upward , if nec-
essary, but not downward" upon completion of the survey by Clark who was then
on vacation . The increase was put into effect by the Company the same day.
On August 20, 1962, the Union filed a representation petition with the National
Labor Relations Board , seeking election as bargaining representative of the Com-
pany's production and maintenance employees. Thereafter, in the representation
proceeding, the Union and the Company entered into "a consent election agreement,"
and an election was scheduled for September 20, 1962.
Two days before the scheduled election date, the Company sent a letter , by special
delivery mail , to each employee eligible to vote. The communication , alluding to
the anticipated election , and stating that the letter 's purpose was "to make it clear
that the company is unalterably opposed to an outside union and to explain why
an outside union is against your best interest and against the company 's best in-
terest ," asserts, among other things, that it has "always been Laars policy to keep
1344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
our wage rates higher than the average for our industry"; sets forth comparative
wage and benefit tables (one in the body of the letter, and the other as an attach-
ment), according to which, the Respondent pays higher wages, and provides greater
benefits, to employees than two unionized competitors (one represented by the
Union, according to the letter); states that the comparative figures show that "the
average Laars employee is ahead almost $600.00 per year, and (that) no Laars em-
ployee has ever paid one cent to a union to get this"; attributes to the Company,
and describes, a policy of treating all employees "with absolute fairness and equal-
ity"; expresses the position that the Company "cannot pay any more for wages or
benefits at this time" because such payment would put it at a competitive disadvan-
tage with firms that pay "help much less than we do", and then states the following:
If an outside union is voted in, they will be forced to try to get "something"
for their members so that they will pay dues and assessments. Let me make
it perfectly clear that we will never agree to a wage contract that will make
us non-competitive and force us out of business. This is why a vote for an
outside union is a vote for a possible strike.
The union has a right to call you off the job. Of course, if they do your
income stops. In event of a strike, the company has a right to continue to
operate the plant. I can assure you that in event of a strike, we will con-
tinue to operate the plant. We will hire replacements for the strikers and the
replacements will be permanent replacements.
Is it worth letting yourself be talked into the possible loss of your job and
the sure loss of a pleasant place to work when you are already getting much
more than this same union has gotten for its members in this industry, and you
are already getting all the wages and benefits we can possibly pay?
Just look at the record and you will see that a "yes" vote is a vote for a
union which has obtained .. .
lower wages
fewer benefits
more union dues
more union assessments
possible strikes
A "NO" vote is a vote for ...
higher wages
more benefits
no dues
no assessments
no strikes
Only you can decide.
The election was held as scheduled, and the Union lost by a vote of 34 to 10.
Upon objections filed by the Union, the Regional Director of the Board's Twenty-
first Region set the election aside on September 26, 1962. So far as appears, that
is where the representation matter now rests.
B. Discussion of the issues; concluding findings
Two basic questions are presented for resolution, and these are (1) whether the
general wage increase was put into effect when it was in order to ward off interest
by the employees in union representation; and (2) whether the preelection letter
contained threats or promises designed to influence the employees' votes.
As regards the first issue, the fact that the Employees' Committee in effect asked
for a wage increase prior to the Union's organizational efforts, and that the Com-
pany on that occasion promised an adjustment "if it was indicated" upon a survey,
is not decisive of the issue, for the question is not whether the Company would
at one point or another have increased wages in response to the request, but whether
the Respondent put the increase into effect when it did because the Union had
begun a campaign to organize the employees.
Miller (who was the only management witness) denies that he saw the distribution
of the organizational kits at the parking lot entrances on July 30, but that does not
mean that the management did not become aware of the Union's organizational
activity between the date of the distribution and the general increase a little over
a week later. Miller, it may be noted, conceded at one point that the kit distribution
came to his attention "about that time" (of the wage increase), although claiming
that he could not recall whether before or after the increase. No doubt, "about
that time" could as much mean after as before the increase, but that by no means
ends the matter, for circumstances surrounding the increase impel a conclusion
LAARS ENGINEERS, INC. 1345
that the Union's organizational efforts were at the bottom of the management's
decision to put the increase into effect when it did.
The timing of the increase, coming as it did only a little over a week after the kit
distribution, is a factor of prime importance, but its significance is greatly enhanced
by the fact that at the time of the increase, Clark had not completed the survey
promised at the July 24 meeting, having left on his vacation at some point between
that date and August 8, and was still on vacation when the increase was put into
effect on the latter date. This timing suggests some haste in granting the increase,
and. that view of the matter is underscored by the fact that in putting the increase
into effect when it did, the Company departed from its prior practice, antecedent to
a general wage adjustment, of making a survey that, according to Miller himself,
"normally" takes about a month or two
Although the announcement and granting of the increase before the completion
of the promised survey is a particularly arresting fact, one may search Miller's testi-
mony in vain for a plausible explanation of the Company's unusual course. Claims
by Miller to the effect that the increase was merely "interim" pending completion
of the survey, and that it was based on "some notes" (which were not produced at
the hearing) given Miller by Clark before the latter left on his vacation will not
suffice, for the record is barren of any evidence that there was any request, let alone
pressure, for an increase, whether "interim" or otherwise, from any employees,
including the committee, after the July 24 meeting, or that the increase was neces-
sary to maintain production or to retain help. Moreover, Miller's claims not only
fail as an explanation of the timing of the increase, but have earmarks of unrelia-
bility, for they are attended by vagueness and entangled in self-contradiction.
Initially, he testified that to the best of his recollection, the alleged partial survey
was begun "about the time of the July meeting" with the Employees' Committee,
and then, asked whether before or after the meeting, he replied, "I am not sure."
Subsequently, however, he stated that "the preliminary work on the survey" had
been started in May 1962, when, according to Miller, the Company had considered,
and decided against, a wage increase. Comparably, with respect to the time when
Clark allegedly gave him the notes, Miller testified at one point that he received
them before Clark went on vacation "[t]he second week in July perhaps" (one
may bear in mind, in that regard, that the "second week in July" was well before
the July 24 meeting when the survey was promised); but later he stated that "it
must have been after that," and thereafter asserted that Clark gave him the notes,
and went on vacation, between the July 24 meeting and that of August 8, the date
on which the "interim" increase was announced?
In sum, taking into account the timing of the increase, the fact that it was put
into effect before the completion of the promised survey, the absence of any plausible
explanation for the timing, apart from the Union's organizational campaign, and
the pattern of vagueness and self-contradiction in Miller's testimony, I must con-
clude that the Respondent put the increase into effect when it did in order to
deflect the interest of its employees from the Union's organizational efforts, and thus
I hold that by granting the increase, the Respondent interfered with the exercise of
rights guaranteed its employees by Section 7 of the Act, thereby violating Section
8 (a) (1) of the status.
Turning to the General Counsel's thesis regarding the preelection letter, I do not
agree with his position that the document, as the complaint puts it, "threatened
2 It is well to note that the pattern of ambiguity in Miller's testimony goes substantially
beyond the subject of his receipt of the alleged notes. Significantly enough, this char-
acteristic touches the important question whether he was aware of the kit distribution
prior 'to the wage increase. In reply to a question whether it came to his attention "that
there 'had been" such distribution-plainly a query whether he learned of the activity at
any time-he made the hedging response: "Not at that time" (of the distribution) Then,
asked when the distribution did come to his attention, he testified, "I really can't say
for sure I do not have any specific knowledge," adding that cards are frequently dis-
tributed in the plant vicinity "and we do not pay much attention to it " He conceded,
however, that he did learn about the distribution, adding "but when I cannot say " Sub-
sequently, he testified, "I can't remember the first time it came to my attention, but I
would imagine it was probably ten days or two weeks, something like that, afterward";
and thereafter , in response to a question whether he learned about the distribution prior
to the increase, he stated: "It was about that time I do not know whether it was before
or after." Following that, to a query whether he knew at the time of the increase that
there had been an effort to organize the employees , be replied , "I may have," and volun-
teered, "It was not a material thing at that time." The pattern of ambiguity, self-
contradiction , and hedging replies in Miller's testimony gives added point to the necessity
for appraising the motive for the lucrease in the light of the total record
1346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees with loss of jobs." The thrust of what it has to say on the subject of
job security is that in the event of a strike, the Company would hire "permanent
replacements" ( as is its right in case of an economic strike), and that for that
reason unionization could lead to "the possible loss of your job." So construed,
the portion of the letter dealing with the possibility of job loss is a permissible ex-
pression of "views, argument or opinion," within the reach of Section 8(c) of
the Act.
However, I take a different view of the statement near the end of the letter
that a " `NO' vote is a vote for ... higher wages [and] more benefits." It is one
thing to express the view that unionization may lead to a strike resulting in a
possible job loss as a consequence of permissible permanent replacement; it is quite
another matter to say that a vote against the Union "is a vote for . . . higher wages
[and] more benefits." The latter statement is no mere opinion that the employees
would be better off without, than with, union representation, but, on the contrary,
is, in substance, a flat assertion that rejection of the Union will result in "higher
wages" and "more benefits." This becomes evident if one examines the state-
ment's negative implication, which is, plainly, that a vote for the Union is a vote
for lower wages and fewer benefits. Obviously, if the Union won the election,
that would not preclude the Company from continuing to maintain the policy of
providing "higher wages" and "more benefits" it attributes to itself, upon appropriate
consultation with the employees' bargaining representative; and thus to state flatly,
as does the letter, that a " `NO' vote is a vote for higher wages [and] more bene-
fits" is no mere comparison of union and non-union standards; it is tantamount to
a statement that "higher wages" and "more benefits" would be withheld in the event
of a "YES" vote for the Union. The coercive thrust of this is plain?
The sum of the matter is that the assertion that a "'NO' vote is a vote for higher
wages [and] more benefits" is, in the language of Section 8(c), "a promise of
benefit" conditioned upon rejection of the Union in the election, and, by implica-
tion, a threat of denial of benefit in the event of selection of the Union, and is
thus not within the protective reach of Section 8(c); and that as a result of the
statement, the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, thus violating Section
8 (a) (1) of the statute -4
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, 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 obstruct-
ing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices violative
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall recommend below that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative actions designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
3 The result is the same whether or not one views the expression in question as an
opinion, for "[elven though such statements may be expressive 'of opinion only, If 'their
reasonable tendency is coercive in effect, they are violative of Section 8(a) (1)." N L.R B
v. E. S Kingsford, d/b/a Kingsford Motor Car Co., 52 LRR111 2555, 2560 (C.A 6), and
cases cited.
4I find no operative weight in evidence presented by the Respondent that during the
course of a speech Miller made "on company time" to the employees at the plant on
September 19, 1962, the day after the letter was sent, he made remarks to the effect that
the employees had a right to be represented by a union if they chose, that their vote was
by secret ballot, and that the Company would bargain with the Union in good faith if
the employees designated the organization as bargaining representative. Whether or not
one views these statements as mere lipservice references to the employees' statutory
rights against the background of the Respondent's antecedent conduct, the remarks do not
alter the fact that the general wage increase was put into effect when it was in order to
ward off interest by the employees in unionization , and -that the letter contained what
amounted to a promise of "higher wages" and "more benefits" conditioned upon the re-
jection of the Union by the employees
LAARS ENGINEERS, INC. 1347
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact , and upon the entire record in this
proceeding, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Laars Engineers , Inc., is, and has been at all material times , an employer
within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
2. International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, is, and has been at all
material times, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, as found above, the said Company 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 the Respondent, Laars Engi-
neers, Inc., its officers , agents, successors , and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Offering, promising, or guaranteeing any of its employees higher wages or
benefits or any changes in terms or conditions of employment of any employee in
order to influence the choice of a bargaining representative by any employee, or the
attitude of any employee toward any labor organization, or increasing wages or rates
of pay of any of its employees for the purpose of so influencing such choice or
attitude.
(b) In any other like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
employees in the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist any labor organi-
zation, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to
engage in 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 agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Post at its usual place of business at North Hollywood, California, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director of the Twenty-first Region of the National Labor Relations
Board, shall, after being signed by a duly authorized representative of the said
Company, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by
it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the said Company to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material .5
(b) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days of the receipt
by the Company of a copy of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order,
what steps the said Company has taken to comply therewith.6
It is further recommended that, unless on or before 20 days from the date of its
receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order the Respondent notify
the said Regional Director that it will comply with the foregoing Recommended
Order, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondent
to take the action aforesaid.
In the event that this Recommended Order Ss adopted by the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, the words "A Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the additional event that the
Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words
"Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing fan Order"
shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order"
IIn the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, paragraph 2(b)
thereof 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 toy comply
therewith."
712-548-64-vol. 142-86
1348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor. Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT offer, promise, or guarantee any of our employees higher wages
or benefits or any changes in terms or conditions of employment of any em-
ployee in order to influence the choice of a bargaining representative by any
employee, or the attitude of any employee toward any labor organization; or
increase wages or rates of pay of any of our employees for the purpose of so
influencing such choice or attitude.
WE WILL NOT in any other like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce employees in the exercise of their right 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 collec-
tive 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 said Act.
LAARS ENGINEERS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date of posting, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Information regarding provisions of this notice and compliance with its terms may
be secured from the Regional Office of the National Labor Relations Board, 849
South Broadway, Los Angeles, California, 90014, Telephone No. Richmond 9-4711,
Extension 1031.
Rock River Plumbing and Piping Contractors Association and
Local Union No. 309, International Hod Carriers , Building
and Common Laborers Union of America, AFL-CIO
Davenport Association of Plumbing Contractors and Local
Union No . 309, International Hod Carriers , Building and
Common Laborers Union of America , AFL-CIO. Cases Nos.
13-CA-4965 and 13-CA-5008 (formerly 18-CA-1448). June 20,
1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 11, 1963, Trial Examiner Horace A. Ruckel issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed
in its entirety, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report.
Thereafter, the General Counsel, Respondents, and the Charging
Party filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting
briefs.
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
142 NLRB No. 147.