Nopco Chemical Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 28, 1962

138 N.L.R.B. 1275 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

NOPCO CHEMICAL COMPANY 1275
Local Union No. 390, an affiliate of International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America , or any other labor or-
ganization , in a manner constituting interference , restraint , or coercion in viola-
tion of Section 8(a) (1).
WE WILL NOT solicit or attempt to induce our employees to refrain from
union affiliation by promises of economic benefit ; or threaten our employees
with loss of employment , shutdown , or removal of the plant or sale of company
equipment , or other reprisals , if they affiliate with, or iefuse to withdraw from,
the Union or if a union organizes the plant
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self -organization , to form , join, or
assist the said Freight Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No.
390, an affiliate of International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America , or any other labor organization , to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection or to refrain from any and all such activities.
WE WILL offer full and immediate reinstatement in writing ,to Sam Cagnina,
Raymond Beiro, Jr., Manuel Carmona, and Leroy Jordan, to their former
positions , if existing , or otherwise to substantially equal positions , without pre-
judice to their seniority or other rights and privileges , and make them whole
for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against them.
All our employees are free to become or remain or to refrain from becoming or
remaining members of Freight Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union
No. 390, an affiliate of International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America , or any other labor organization.
CHARLEY TOPPINO AND SONS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(PHILIP TOPPINO , President)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Twelfth Regional Office,
112 East Cass Street , Tampa 2, Florida , Telephone Number, 223-4623, if they
have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Nopco Chemical Company and International Union of Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO. Case No. 10-CA-4980.
September 28, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 25, 1962, 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 Intermediate
Report. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had
not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices as alleged in the
complaint. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate 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 this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown].
138 NLRB No. 141.
1276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate
Report and the entire record in the case, including the exceptions and
brief, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial
Examiner with the following modification :
1. The following sentence shall be substituted for the present sen-
tence appearing below the signature of the notice :
"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."
'In the absence of exception , we adopt pro forma the Trial Examiner' s recommenda-
tion that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleged that the Respondent unlaw-
fully interrogated employees concerning their union activity.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge filed May 8 , 1962, by International Union of Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO ( herein called the Union ), the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board , by the Regional Director for the
Tenth Region, issued a complaint on May 16, 1962 , against Nopco Chemical Com-
pany (herein called Respondent or the Company .' The issue litigated was whether
or not Respondent , through statements made by two of its supervisors in February
and March 1962 interfered with , restrained , or coerced its employees in violation
of Section 8(a) (i) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein called
the Act).
Pursuant to notice, a bearing was held before Trial Examiner Samuel M. Singer
in Chattanooga , Tennessee , on June 25 , 1962. All parties were represented at the
hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross-
examine witnesses , and to introduce relevant evidence . Briefs were filed by the
General Counsel and Respondent which have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record and my observations of the witnesses , I hereby make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is a New Jersey corporation maintaining a plant and place of business
in Chattanooga, Tennessee, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distri-
bution of polyurethane foam products. Respondent, since on or about July 1, 1961,
until the date of issuance of the complaint, a representative period, sold and shipped
finished products valued in excess of $50,000 directly from its Chattanooga, Ten-
nessee, plant to customers outside the State of Tennessee. Respondent admits, and
I find, that at all times material herein, Respondent has been, and is, engaged in
commerce within the, meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
U. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization with-
in the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
I The name of the Company , as it originally appeared in the complaint was "Nopco
Chemical Company, Plant 13, Plastics Division." By agreement of the parties at the
hearing the name was corrected to read as it now appears in the caption.
NOPCO CHEMICAL COMPANY 1277
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
On March 17, 1962,2 the Union filed a petition for certification as the collective-
bargaining representative of certain of Respondent's employees, including the pro-
duction employees here involved.3 The Union failed to obtain a majority of the
votes cast in the election held April 26, 1962, and it thereafter filed objections to the
conduct of the election. The Regional Director sustained one of the Union's ob-
jections and Respondent thereupon filed exceptions to the Regional Director's de-
termination which are still pending before the Board.
Approximately 2 weeks prior to the filing of the Union's representation petitiori,-
Respondent distributed to its supervisors a five-page statement detailing "what their
roles should be during the time of a union campaign for recognition and what prin-
ciples shall guide them whether or not the employees are represented by a collective
bargaining agent." The statement stressed the supervisor's right and duty to exercise
"the free speech privilege" guaranteed in Section 8(c) of the Act and then detailed at
length what the supervisor "can-and should" do and what he "must not do" during,
a union's organizational drive. Thus, supervisors were urged to explain to the em-
ployees the Company's policies and working conditions, to emphasize to them the
right to vote, to explain that the "signing of pledge cards for a union does not bind
them to vote for it," and to tell employees "why you think they should not join any
union at this time ." The supervisors were told, however, that they "cannot warn or
even hint" that the employees would be visited with reprisals for joining a union,
and that they may not promise benefits for voting against a union, "threaten or coerce
an employee" to vote against it, question employees as to whether they joined or
voted for a union , and otherwise interfere with the employees' self-organizational
rights At the same time the supervisors were told that they "need not hesitate in
stating [their] honest opinion as to why [they] believe a union is not needed in
this instance." It was emphasized that telling "employees why you think they should
not join any union at this time . is a very important right. You can tell them
about the advantages you believe they have in discussing matters directly with the
Company."
On March 19, 2 days after the filing of the representative petition, Respondent
distributed to its employees a handbook describing, among other things, the various
benefits enjoyed by the employees. The benefits referred to included six paid holi-
days, paid vacations, paid hospitalization, and call-in pay. According to William
W. Marshall, the manager of the plant during the period here involved, preparation
of the handbook commenced "sometime in late 1960, early 1961," before the advent
of the Union.4
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
It is not disputed that on or about March 19, and on other occasions thereafter
two of Respondent's supervisors assembled the employees working under their direc-
tion and talked to them about the pending organizational campaign and the forth-
coming representation election .5 One of these supervisors was Raymond
D. Alexander, the shipping and receiving supervisor, and the other was Frederick
M. Ozment, supervisor of the slitting and polishing departments Both supervisors
spoke to the employees about the advantages and disadvantages of joining the Union,
and mentioned the fact that the employees were free to make their own selections
in the secret Board-conducted election. There is also some testimony, which I
credit, that the supervisors mentioned that the employees could continue to talk
"union," so long as this did not interfere with production. There is, however, a
sharp conflict in the testimony as to whether Alexander and Ozment made certain
additional statements, some of which, the General Counsel alleges, constitute inter-
ference, restraint, and coercion, violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
According to the witnesses produced by the General Counsel, the two supervisors
made various threatening remarks in the course of their talks. Employee Edward
2 Unless otherwise noted, all dates herein refer to the year 1962.
3 Case No. 10-RC-5224 (not published in NLRB volumes).
I Marshall was a wholly credible witness and I credit his testimony.
6 One employee testified that the discussion with the employees on his shift lasted
15 minutes.
O The supervisory status of these men is not questioned Each had the right to hire,
fire, and discipline employees. Working under Ozment was another supervisory em-
ployee, Jernigan, who was in charge of the third shift or night shift.
1278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A. Stork testified that Supervisor Alexander, in his talk to the six or seven assembled
employees on his shift (on or about March 19) discussed the Company handbook
and asked the employees if they had any grievances. When Stork wanted to know
why the workload had lately increased in the department, Alexander replied that
this was not so and then, according to Stork-
He told me that if I thought things were tough now, that if the union came
in . . it would be tougher. He also stated that the company could take
away some of our privileges and benefits and went on to say that the company
could even close for a period of 30 days and hire all new personnel to get
around the union... .
Louis Joe Lane, another employee present, testified to substantially the same effect,
adding that Alexander specifically referred to the "breaks" or rest periods which the
Company might withdraw if the plant were unionized. A third employee, Gene
Holloway, could recall only Alexander's talk about possible loss of privileges, but
Holloway indicated that he was not present during the entire speech.
As to Supervisor Ozment's talks, employee Anne Stewart, testified that Ozment
assembled the girls in the fabricating department on or about March 18; 7 that
Ozment referred to his own past experience as a union member, stating that "all
the union ever done was to take his $5.00"; and that Ozment then remarked that
"if we thought he was rough on us, wait until the union got in and it would be
rougher, that our breaks would be shortened and running back and forth to the
rest room would be stopped." Employee Grace M. Rogers testified to the same
effect. In addition, she stated that at a meeting called several days later, at which
the male workers were also present, Ozment made similar remarks, stating that
"the privileges and things would get harder, work would be harder, some of the
privileges would be taken away and it wouldn't be a picnic." Employee William
Walden testified that at another meeting held for the employees on his shift, about
3:15 p.m. March 28,8 Ozment told the approximately 25 employees present that
"there's no secret about it [the Union] any more"; and that while he (Ozment)
had heretofore been "slack" about the work, he would thereafter "get harder and
make the work harder." L. O. Stone testified that in the middle or the end of
March, Ozment likewise addressed the third shift employees and, after pointing
out to the employees that the "company can do more for you than the union could,"
gave as an example the fact that the "company is now paying your insurance and
if the union comes in, this will be taken away and you will have to pay it." Accord-
ing to Stone, Ozment then added, "If it [the Union] does come in, we will be more
or less on opposite sides of the fence, you will be on one side and I will be on
the other. The union will make it harder on me and I will, in return [sic] make
it harder on you." Bobby Richie, referring to the same incident, quoted Ozment
as stating:
We know that the union is trying to get in. You think that when the union
comes in or if it comes in, that you fellows are going to have it made. You
think we are not going to be able to fire you, but the company still does
the hiring and firing. They won't be able to keep your job at all. The union
isn't interested in you. They drive their big cars and make their money. They
are in it for the money. You won't trust us with your problem but you will
take an outsider to come in and work out your problems for you. Whereas
now your insurance is being paid for you, if the union comes in, that will be
done away with. If the union man is going to be hard on me, he is going to
,be on my neck and, in turn, I am going to have to make it harder on you.
Both Supervisor Alexander and Supervisor Ozment, when called as witnesses for
Respondent categorically denied the threats attributed to them by the General
Counsel's witnesses. Both testified that they scrupulously adhered to the instruc-
tions set forth in the statement distributed to them on March 19 and,the instructions
personally given them by Plant Manager Marshall not to interfere in any way with
the organizational rights of employees. Both specifically denied that they had at
any time in their talks to the employees, during March, told the employees that the
Company would shut the plant, or withdraw existing benefits, or work the employees
harder if the Union came in. Alexander testified: "The only statement I made
was if a union contract were present in our plant, that I would work by that contract
and I would work my men by that contract I never talked of increasing any
7 From other evidence in the record it is apparent that the date was March 19.
s This apparently was the second shift which, according to Respondent's handbook,
began after 3 p.m.
NOPCO CHEMICAL COMPANY 1279
hardship or burden upon them." Ozment gave a similar explanation .9 In addition,
Alexander explained that in his conversations with the employees he expressed con-
cern about the cost of the truck operations but never stated that these operations
would be discontinued if the Union came an.1e
Respondent at the hearing called two employee witnesses 11 to support Supervisor
Alexander's denials and four employee witnesses 12 to corroborate Supervisor Oz-
ment's denials of the threats attributed to them by the General Counsel's witnesses.
The four employees called to reinforce Ozment's testimony worked under Ozment
on the first shift or day shift and testified only as to Ozment's remarks to the em-
ployees at that shift.
C. Concluding findings
1. Credibility of witnesses
From all of the foregoing it is apparent that ,the major issue in this case is one
of credibility-the witnesses for Respondent completely contradicting the witnesses
for the General Counsel on the critical portions of the statements to the employees
allegedly made by Supervisors Alexander and Ozment in March 1962. There is no
question-and indeed it is not otherwise claimed by the General Counsel-that the
written statement which Respondent distributed to its supervisors on March 19,
although antiunion in tenor, falls within the free-speech protection of Section 8(c)
of the Act. Nor do I have any doubt that Plant Manager Marshall-whom I have
already characterized as a credible witness-had personally instructed his supervi-
sors to abide by the written instructions which enjoined the supervisors to refrain
from"illegal interference, restraint, and coercion. However, on careful scrutiny of
the record and the comparative demeanor of the witnesses while on the witness stand,
I am constrained to conclude that Supervisors Alexander and Ozment went beyond
these instructions and, as testified by the General Counsel's witnesses, uttered threats,
and implied threats, warning the employees of reprisals in the event the Union were
established at the plant.
While there are undoubtedly some discrepancies in the testimony of the General
Counsel's witnesses on details, their testimony as to the main events was mutually
consistent and had an authentic ring of truth. It is apparent from the emphasis in
the written instructions distributed to the supervisors, only 2 days before the
speeches commenced, that Respondent expected its supervisors to exercise the "very
important right" to persuade the employees why "they should not join any union
at this time" and that in carrying out this company policy the supervisors in their
enthusiasm went beyond the legal bounds, making their points more telling by
predicting dire consequences if the Union came into the plant. Moreover, on the
whole, .the witness for the General Counsel impressed me as forthright and candid.13
Two of the General Counsel's witnesses (Walden and Holloway) were still in the
Company's employ at the time of the hearing and it was evident to me that they
did their best to tell the truth, whether or not their testimony might hurt their stand-
ing with the Company. On the other hand, Supervisors Alexander and Ozment-
Respondent's chief : witnesses-gave me- the impression that they were studiously
striving to conform their version of the speeches to what they now considered to be
strict compliance with the Company's written instructions of neutrality. Ozment,
although disclaiming any "interest" in the Union, admittedly convened his employees
to discuss the organizational campaign and the forthcoming election, and referred
to his own experience with a union which, he said, brought him no benefits. As
to the employees called by Respondent to support the denials of Alexander and
Ozment, it is noteworthy that while they all claimed to have distinct recollection
6 The General Counsel's witnesses who were questioned on the subject denied that either
supervisor had made any reference to abiding by a union contract.
"Alexander testified: "All I ever stated, to the best of my memory, was that if the
cost of this operation got out of hand, be it union wages or whatever it would be, that
if the trucking budget continued to lose money, the trucks would be done away with and
we would go to common carrier." When Respondent took over the plant from its predeces-
sor, Rubber Products, in July 1961, it also continued the latter's lease arrangements with
Hertz for rental of Hertz trucks , Hertz did not supply any drivers. At the time of the
hearing Respondent operated two Hertz trucks and one of its own trucks-all with its
own drivers.
11 Employees E W Monroe and B J Heard
13 Employees R W. Rodric, 0 R Monroe, J R Standifer, and C E Howard.
1s One of General Counsel's witne«es, L. J Lane, impressed me as a somewhat zealous
partisan but his testimony was corroborated by E A. Stork, a credible witness, and in
part by Gene Holloway, a most careful and meticulous witness.
1280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of what was not said at the meetings, they were much less certain of what was
said at these meetings. In addition, it is significant that all of the four
employees called to support Ozment's denials were day shift (first shift)
employees, no employees having been called to refute the testimony of the General
Counsel's witnesses who also testified as to similar speeches at the other shifts.
Under all the circumstances, therefore, I credit the version of the events as given
by the General Counsel's witnesses.
2. Conclusions with respect to interference, restraint, and coercion
I find and conclude that Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of their self-organizational rights, in violation of Section
8 (a)( 1 ) of the Act by and through the following conduct of its supervisors:
(a) Supervisor Alexander's threats, made on or about March 19, to employees
under his supervision that if the Union came into the plant Respondent would
,require its employees to work harder, would withdraw some of its existing benefits,
and could close its plant and reopen with new employees.
(b) Supervisor Ozment's threat, made on or about March 19, to employees under
.his supervision that if the Union came into the plant their work would be "rougher"
and their breaks or rest periods would be shorter or more strictly enforced.
(c) Supervisor Ozment's additional statement several days later that if the Union
came into the plant their work would get harder and some of their privileges would
be taken away.
(d) Supervisor Ozment's statement to the second shift employees, made on or
about March 28, that while he had theretofore been lax in overseeing their work,
he would hereafter "get harder and make the work harder."
(e) Supervisor Ozment's further statement to the third shift employees sometime
in March that if the Union came into the plant, the Union would "make it harder"
on him but, he, in turn, would "make it harder" on the employees, and, in addition,
that the Company would withdraw the existing company-paid insurance benefits from
the employees.
That such threats made by supervisory employees-in full charge of their de-
partments with complete authority to discipline employees-particularly during the
pendency of a representation election tended to interfere, restrain, and coerce em-
ployees in the exercise of their statutory rights to self-organization is hardly open to
question. I recognize, of course, that this conduct on the part of the supervisors was
contrary to the written instructions of their superior, Plant Manager Marshall, and,
moreover, that the supervisors in their own speeches had reassured the employees
that ,they were free to choose or not to choose the Union. However, it is clear that
whatever assurances of neutrality the supervisors may have given the employees,
these did not, and could not, eradicate the coercive effect of the economic reprisals
that were predicted to be in store for them if they made the wrong choice. See,
N.L.R.B. v. Laister-Kaufjmann Aircraft Corporation, 144 F. 2d 9, 13 (C.A. 8);
N.L.R.B. v. Cleveland Cliffs Iron Company, 133 F. 2d 295, 310 (C.A. 6). And the
fact that the supervisors' statements were "contrary to the orders of the company
manager and to the express policy of the Company." Solvay Process Company v.
N.L.R.B., 117 F. 2d 83, 85 (C.A. 5), cert. denied 313 U.S. 596, is of no moment
since it does not appear that these orders were ever communicated to the employees.
Nor is there any evidence that Respondent had taken any steps to repudiate the
statements of the supervisors. Solo Cup Company, 114 NLRB 121, 123, enfd. 237 F.
2d 521 (C.A. 8); Time-O-Matic, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 264 F. 2d 96, 99100 (C.A. 7).
Accordingly, I conclude that Respondent by the conduct described above inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the self-organiza-
tional rights guaranteed by Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.14
14 In addition to alleging illegal threats of reprisals, the complaint herein also alleged
illegal interrogation of employees concerning their union membership , activities, and de-
sires. In my opinion this allegation is not supported by the record, and I so find. While
one of the General Counsel ' s witnesses ( Grace M. Rogers ) testified that Ozment started
out one meeting with the statement "I want to find out what you all think about the
union," she did not testify that Ozment actually proceeded to ask any such question.
Indeed , she conceded that Ozment had never asked her if she "belonged to the union."
Employee Lane also testified that in a conversation with Alexander in February 1962,
Alexander asked him if he heard "anything about the union, rumors about the union
getting started" but Lane admitted that this was but a casual inquiry about a "truck
driver" union that was trying to organize Hertz and not Respondent.
NOPCO CHEMICAL COMPANY 1281
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection
with its operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substan-
tial 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 thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it will be
recommended that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action which, it is found, is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
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. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union 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
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) and 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 the case, I recommend that Respondent Nopco Chemical
Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening employees with reprisals, including imposing upon them onerous
working conditions, withdrawal of existing privileges, or loss of employment, if they
select a union to represent them.
(b) In any other like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or
assist any labor organizations, 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, as guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, or to refrain from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Post at its plant at Chattanooga, Tennessee, copies of the notice attached
hereto marked "Appendix." 15 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by a representa-
tive of Respondent, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, in-
cluding places where notices to its employees are customarily posted. 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 for the Tenth Region, in writing, within 20
days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what steps have been taken to
comply herewith.
It is further recommended that, unless Respondent shall, within the prescribed
period, notify the Regional Director that it will comply with the foregoing recom-
mendations, the Board issue an order requiring Respondent to take the aforesaid
action.is
zs In the event that these Recommendations be adopted by the Board, the words "A De-
cision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommendations of a Trial
Examiner" 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" shall be substituted for the words "A Decision
and Order."
1e In the event that these Recommendations be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read, "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days
Irom the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
1282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommendations 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 threaten our employees with reprisals if they select a union to
represent them.
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 labor organizations, 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 or all such activities.
Norco CHEMICAL COMPANY,
Employer
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 528
Peachtree-Seventh Building, 50 Seventh Street NE , Atlanta, Georgia, Telephone
Number, Trinity 6-3311, Extension 5357, if they have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions.
Local 60 , United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices
of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United
States and Canada, AFL-CIO and Binnings Construction Com-
pany , Inc. Case No. 15-CC-133. September 28, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 3, 1961, Trial Examiner A. Norman Somers issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent 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 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 this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and
Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
and finds no prejudicial error. The rulings are affirmed. The Board
has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and the brief,
and the entire record in the case, and finds merit in the General Coun-
sel's exceptions. Accordingly, the Board adopts only those findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner which are
consistent with this Decision and Order.
138 NLRB No. 116.