Ralph Wells & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 1, 1965

151 N.L.R.B. 1384 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

1384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Director for Region 19, shall be duly signed and posted by the Respondents immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents to insure that said notices
are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 19 signed copies of the aforemen-
tioned notice for posting by Leonard V. Ryan, at his election. Copies of said notices,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 19, shall , after being signed by
the Respondents , be forthwith returned to the said Regional Director for disposition.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in writing , within 20 days from
the date of receipt of this Decision and Recommended Order, what steps have been
taken in compliance therewith.21
21 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , this provision
shall be modified to read " Notify said Regional Director , in writing , within 10 days from
the date of this Oider , what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF
LEONARD V . RYAN OR SWEPT WING MOTEL, INC
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 you that.
WE WILL NOT picket or cause to be picketed or threaten to picket the Swept
Wing Motel jobsite or Leonard V Rvan where an object thereof is forcing or
requiring Leonard V. Ryan to recognize or bargain with Carpenters Local No.
2133, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization , as the representative of his employees , in violation
of Section 8 (b) (7) (C ) of the Act.
CARPENTERS LOCAL No. 2133 , UNITED BROTHERHOOD
OF CARPENTERS & JOINERS OF AMERICA , AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated ------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
SALEM BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL , 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. Interested
persons may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office , 327 Logan
Building, Seattle , Washington, Telephone No. 682-4553 , if they have any question
concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Ralph Wells & Co. and International Association of Machinists,
AFL-CIO
Ralph Wells & Co. and American Federation of Grain Millers,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner and International Association of Machin-
ists, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 38-CA-6 (formerly 13-CA-5917)
and 38-RC-1 (f ornaerly 13-RC-9604). April 1, 1965
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF THIRD ELECTION
On September 11, 1964, Trial Examiner Sidney D. Goldberg issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
151 NLRB No. 131.
RALPH WELLS & CO. 1355
spondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Decision. The Trial
Examiner further found that the Respondent had not engaged in
certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. In
addition the Trial Examiner found certain conduct engaged in by
the Respondent prior to a runoff election of August 29, 1963, but
after the Board election held on August 22, to be objectionable, as
alleged in the objections to the election filed by the International
Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, Intervenor, in Case No. 13-
RC-9604; the Trial Examiner recommended that the runoff election
be set aside and a new election be directed. The Trial Examiner
also found that certain conduct of the Respondent during the rele-
vant period was not objectionable and recommended that the objec-
tion referring to such conduct be rejected. The Respondent filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.
The General Counsel filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with
these cases to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown,
and Jenkins].
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
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire
record in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner as modified herein..
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order the Order recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner as modified herein and orders that
the Respondent, Ralph Wells & Co., its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order with the following modification: 2
'As alleged in the complaint , we find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act by posting and maintaining a notice barring distribution of any union litera-
ture in any manner on company premises , and by posting and maintaining the antisolicita-
tion notice fully described in the Trial Examiner ' s Decision However , we find it
unnecessary to determine the independent validity of that portion of the no-distribution
notice relating to the posting of material on the Respondent ' s premises without obtaining
Respondent ' s permission . This matter was not alleged to be invalid in the complaint.
We shall amend the Trial Examiner ' s Recommended Order and appendix by substituting
the word "no-distribution " wherever the woid "no-posting" appears.
2 The address given in the appendix attached to the Trial Examiner ' s Decision is
amended to read: "The Board ' s Subregional Office, Fourth Floor , Citizens Building,
225 Main Street, Peoria, Illinois, Telephone No. 673-9283."
1386 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Paragraph 1(a) of the Recommended Order shall be amended by
deleting from the third sentence thereof "no-posting " and substitut-
ing in its place "no-distribution".
The third substantive paragraph of the Appendix is deleted and
the following paragraph is substituted therefor :
'`WE WILL NOT promulgate or enforce antisolicitation or no-
distribution rules which prohibit our employees from discussing
union matters on nonworking time or distributing union literature
in the plant or on the plant premises during nonworking time in
nonworking areas."
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the runoff election held on August 29,
1964, in Case No. 38-RC-1 ( formerly 13-RC-9604) among the
employees of Ralph Wells & Co. at its Monmouth, Illinois, plant, in
the designated unit be, and it hereby is, set aside , and that said case
be remanded to the Regional Director for Region 13 of the Board
to conduct a new election at such time as he deems that circumstances
permit the employees to exercise a free choice in the selection of a
bargaining representative.
[Text of Direction of Third Election omitted from publication.]
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
These proceedings, pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 9(c), respectively, of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein called the Act), were heard at
Monmouth, Illinois, on February 18, 19, and 20, 1964, before Trial Examiner Sidney
D. Goldberg on a complaint l alleging that Ralph Wells & Co. (herein called the
Company), had, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act, interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them therein
and upon the objections of the International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO
(herein called Machinists) to certain conduct by the Company claimed to have
affected the result of the election held August 29, 1963, among the employees of the
Company. The issues in both proceedings are similar, arising out of the same-or
closely related-conduct and, by order dated December 27, 1963, they were consoli-
dated for hearing and disposition.
At the hearing all parties, except the American Federation of Grain Millers, AFL-
CIO (herein called the Grain Millers), were present and represented by counsel, and
were afforded an opportunity to adduce evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and argue
upon the facts and the law. Helpful briefs have been filed by the General Counsel
and by counsel for the Company and the Machinists-
For the reasons hereinafter set forth in detail, I find that, in certain particulars,
the Company did interfere with the rights of its employees and that, by certain con-
duct, it improperly affected the result of the election.
Based upon the entire record 2 in this case, including the demeanor of the wit-
nesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE EMPLOYER INVOLVED
The complaint alleges, and the answer stipulates, that the Company is an Illinois
corporation engaged at Monmouth, Illinois, in the manufacture and sale of pet foods
'Issued November 27, 1963, on charges filed October 4 and 15, 1963.
2 Respondent, at page 12 of its brief, requests that page 427 of the transcript of testi-
mony be corrected to set forth in full certain questions and answers at that point. No
opposition to this request has been received from either the General Counsel or the Union.
The version contained in Respondent's brief appears to be correct and the request Is
granted. The transcript is hereby ordered amended accordingly.
RALPH WELLS & CO. 1387
,and pet food products; and that it annually imports materials valued at more than
'$50,000, and annually exports, to States outside the State of Illinois, products valued
at more than $50,000. I find that the Company is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Grain Millers and the Machinists are labor organizations within the meaning
,of the Act.
III. THE REPRESENTATION CASE
On August 5, 1963,3 the Grain Millers filed a petition seeking to represent the
production and maintenance employees of the Company and stating that a claim
of representation was also being made by the Machinists . Pursuant to a stipulation
for certification upon consent election signed by the Grain Millers, the Machinists,
.and the Company , an election was held August 22 at which 27 votes were cast for
the Gram Millers , 35 votes were cast for the Machinists, and 37 votes were cast for
no labor organization . On the same day, all parties involved in the election waived
any rights they had to file objections to this election and a runoff election was set.
The runoff election was conducted on August 29 and resulted in 30 votes being cast
for the Machinists and 70 for no labor organization . On September 6 the Machinists
filed objections , claiming that conduct by the Company between August 22 and 29
had affected the result of the runoff election.
The Employer 's alleged misconduct , briefly stated , consisted of: (1) letters cre-
ating an atmosphere of futility and tear; ( 2) radio programs discouraging support
for the Machinists; ( 3) a speech on August 27 by the Employer's president , Adrian
Wells, threatening to transfer the plant; (4) on August 27 compelling employees to
wear stickers with the word "NO" thereon and threatening violence to union adher-
ents; (5 ) attempts , during the week of August 26, to influence the votes of employees
and to prevent them from wearing union buttons; ( 6) a posted notice prohibiting the
placing of any but "authorized " matter on bulletin boards on company premises and
prohibiting solicitation of union cards during lunch or rest periods; ( 7) threatening
loss of pension rights if a union should be chosen as collective -bargaining represen-
tative; (8) showing the film "Women Must Weep"; ( 9) an excessive number of state-
ments, over the local radio station , of the Employer 's position ; and (10 ) a radio
speech by the Employer, within 24 hours before the runoff election .4
IV. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issues
The complaint alleges that, during August, the Company (1) threatened its employ-
ees with loss of employment if they chose the Machinists as their collective-bargaining
representative; (2) promulgated rules forbidding employees from soliciting member-
ship in and distributing literature of the Machinists at any time on company premises;
(3) compelled its employees to wear antiunion buttons; (4) threatened an employee
with physical violence for being a union sympathizer; (5) interrogated, threatened,
and kept under surveillance employees with respect to their union activity; and
(6) maintained a profit-sharing plan which excluded therefrom any employee who-
might choose a union as his collective-bargaining agent. These issues are closely
similar to the Machinists' remaining objections set forth above and the evidence in
both proceedings is substantially the same.
The complaint also alleges that, during September and October, Respondent, in
violation of Section 8(a) (2) of the Act, sponsored, organized, assisted, and bargained
with its plant safety committee as a labor organization. The Company's answer
admitted certain factual allegations of the complaint but denied the commission of
unfair labor practices.
B. Background
The Company, employing about 140 people, is engaged in the production of cereal
dogfood and ingredients from grain and soybeans which it purchases principally from
local farmers its plant buildings are at two separate locations in Monmouth- at
South 3d Street and at South D Street, about three-quarters of a mile apart. The
buildings at South 3d Street consist of a grain elevator, a scales building, and the
3 All dates, unless otherwise specified , are 1963
4 At the hearing, Machinists conceded that no evidence had been produced In support
of (2), and it withdrew (8), (9), and (10).
1388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"cereal plant building," which includes the cereal-processing plant, the kiblet (some-
times simply called "K") plant, and the bean-processing plant. About 30 to 40 pro-
duction and maintenance employees work there. The South D Street buildings house
the general offices of the Company, another grain elevator, the "X" and "non-X"
departments 5 and the packaging departments. There are approximately 30 office
clerical employees (excluded from the unit) and 50 to 60 production and maintenance
employees at South D Street.°
Adrian R. Wells and Willis H. Wells, sons of the founder of the Company, are
its principal officers. Adrian R. Wells, as president, is responsible for the financial
affairs of the Company and makes his office at South D Street Willis H. Wells, vice
president and treasurer, makes his office at South 3d Street and is in charge at that
location Max Stults, a vice president, heads the department of production and has
jurisdiction over personnel.
At the end of July, when organizing activities began, Stults prepared and distrib-
uted to all foremen a four-page memorandum described in its first words as a "hand-
book of `DO's and DONT'S' to combat any union attempts to organize our plants."
There is no evidence that this memorandum came to the attention of any of the
nonsupervisory employees and neither its existence nor its contents is alleged as a
violation of the Act or as grounds for setting aside the election.
C. Company activity
1. Machinists' meeting of August 3
The representation petition was filed by the Grain Millers on Monday, August 5,
but it is clear that organizing activities by both unions had commenced before that
time About noon on Saturday, August 3, the local radio station, WRAM, broadcast
an announcement that there would be a meeting of the Company's employees later
that day in nearby Galesburg.
The announcement, although prepared and paid for by the Machinists' representa-
tive, had been placed with the radio station the previous evening by Vincent L Mac-
Mahill and Arthur A. Valentine, two longtime employees of the Company at the
South 3d Street plant It stated that there would be a meeting in Galesburg later
that day to acquaint the Company's employees with the "benefits" that the Machinists
could give them and invited all employees to attend Shortly after the announcement
was broadcast, MacMahill and Valentine were called to the office of Willis Wells
where they were interviewed by Wells and Stults.
According to MacMahill, Wells started the interview by asking him, "What is going
on?" MacMahill told Wells that he must know, to which Wells said he did not and
MacMahill said that he should Both MacMahill and Wells agree that Wells then
asked MacMahill who had put the announcement on the air and what he had to do
with it. MacMahill testified that he told of his part Again they agree that Wells
then asked whether the meeting was open to "all" employees so that he and Stults
could attend it and that MacMahill answered affirmatively to the first part of the
question To the second part, MacMahill testified he answered "I suppose so" and
Wells that he answered "absolutely " Stults said he would not go to "the God-damned
thing "
The discussion then turned, according to the employees, to the reason why the
meeting was called, Wells saying that he could not understand why MacMahill should
do "such a thing," asking him whether he and Valentine knew what they were doing
and what benefit the men expected to obtain by having the meeting. Valentine said
that he wanted to find out what the Union could offer. Wells said that the men
did not need a union because they could talk to him at any time He then said that
"they," be and Stults, would protect and respect the rights of employees and that
he knew that "the law protected [them] now but it wouldn't always " 7
MacMahill attended the Machinists' meeting in Galesburg that afternoon, as did
approximately 40 of Wells' employees. Among the Wells employees present were at
5 The record does not disclose the nature of these
0 Adrian Wells' testimony that there were "approximately 8 or 9 production employees"
at South D Street may have been based upon a restricted interpretation of the word
"production" since there appears to be no dispute that these were about 105 "produc-
tion and maintenance" employees in the unit and that 40-50 of them were at the South
3d Street location There appears, as stated, to be a "packaging" department, as well as
the "X" and "non-X" departments at South D Street The employees not otherisre ac-
counted for may be in these groups The actual number of employees in the unit who
woik at South D Street does not become material herein
4 Wells testified concerning the interview but did not deny these statements I find
that lie made them
RALPH WELLS & CO. 1389
least three foreman, including William Clayton. When the meeting began, Inter-
national Representative Fairow, of the Machinists, asked whether there were any
supervisory employees present. Four or five raised their hands and Fairow, saying
that the men would not speak freely in their presence, asked them to leave. The
foremen did not move, but said that "all Wells employees" have been invited.
Several minutes of discussion then ensued in which there was reference to police
assistance in removing the foremen . They then left and the meeting proceeded.
2. The interview of August 5
On Monday, August 5, just before the end of their shift, MacMahill and Valentine
were instructed by their foreman, Clayton, not to punch out but to go to Willis Wells'
office. They did so and found Wells, Stults, and Clayton there. Wells said he was
ashamed of them and was going to put them on 6 months' probation. He handed
them each a carbon copy of a document and kept the original in his hand, saying that
the reasons for his actions were on the paper, which he proceeded to read to them.
The material on the paper was arranged in the form of four charges: (1) that they
had put the announcement on the radio and that it was "false"; (2) that they "were
having doings with the union"; (3) that they had embarrassed the foremen by point-
ing them out at the meeting; and (4) that they "aided and abetted" the removal of
the foremen. Wells also said that he was ashamed of the men because they had failed
to defend the Company against the false claim at the meeting that the Company
controlled the local newspaper and prevented the making of an announcement of the
Machinists ' meeting in that publication.8
Wells asked MacMahill and Valentine to sign the paper if they agreed with its
contents but MacMahill insisted that it was untrue in that he had taken no part in
the removal of the foremen and he refused to sign it . Stults said that, without the
employees' admission of the final item, the document was of no value to the Com-
pany. Wells thereupon took back the copies and threw them all, including his, into
the waste basket.° No disciplinary action was taken against the employees.
3. The antisolicitation and no-posting notices
On August 8 and 9 the following notices were posted on bulletin boards customarily
read by the employees:
To All Employees of Ralph Wells & Co.:
Do not solicit any Ralph Wells & Co. employee to sign any union document
card or paper on company time when either you or the other employees are
being paid by the Company.
This includes rest periods and lunch periods for which you are paid.
You should also refuse to be solicited in this manner, and notify your foreman
immediately.
(S) Adrian R Wells
ADRIAN R. WELLS, President.
NOTICE
Get management's consent before posting anything anywhere on company
premises. Do not remove authorized posted matter without management's
permission.
The distribution of any union literature in any manner on company premises is
illegal.
Max E. Stults.
Stults, who testified that they were posted at his direction, also testified that he was
"sharply aware" of solicitation by the Machinists "early in August." On the basis
of this testimony, which is logical, I reject his further testimony that he posted the
"anti-solicitation" notice because, among other reasons, he had been approached by
several people in town who solicited through advertisements on bulletin boards and
he felt that solicitation addressed to the men "while they were working" would not
8 MacMahill testified that Fairow told him he had tried to get an announcement into
the local paper but was unable to do so.
8 The "interoffice communication" marked "From-Wells, Stults and Clayton" was, ac-
cording to Wells' testimony, a copy of this document except for the final paragraph
which was inserted the next day to make a record of what had occurred. The inter-
office communication in evidence is only semi-intelligible, the employees contested its
accuracy, and the summary of charges set forth above is based upon the credited testimony
of MacMahill and Valentine.
1390 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
be their free choice. I also reject his testimony that the reports of solicitation by the
Machinists came to him after he had posted the notice.10
Willis Wells, testifying with respect to the "no-posting" notice, first stated that
there had been no material posted by the contending unions before the notice was put
up but shortly thereafter he changed his testimony to state that such material had
been posted. He also testified that, as a public service, farmers and other customers,
were permitted to post sales and other notices on the bulletin board near the scales
and that there had never been any serious difficulties encountered in the use of these
bulletin boards 11
The record does not disclose the date when the notices were removed and it must
be assumed that they remained posted during the time material herein, that is, at least
until the second election on August 29.
4. Surveillance
Sometime during the week of August 12. John Starkey, who works at the South 3d
Street elevator as an operator and truckdriver, looked at a small notebook on the
desk of the elevator foreman, Carl Chapman, who was then on vacation. The note-
book was one of the timebooks formerly kept by the Company's supervisors to record
employees' time but had been superseded years previously by timecards. Chapman
continued, however, to keep the book as a personal record.
On the page labeled "Week ending August 3, 1963," there was written, admittedly
by Chapman, the following:
Starkey, Don,12 Valentine and MacMahill Union meeting at Galesburg-
August 8
Starkey took the book and showed it to Willis Wells, saying that a notation of that
sort should not be in a timebook. Wells agreed with Starkey that the notation should
not be there and remarked that he knew there were more than four men at the
Machinists meeting. Wells then erased the notation from the book and returned it
to Starkey who replaced it on Chapman's desk.
5. Section 1.04 of the employees' profit-sharing plan
About 2 days before the first election, probably on Tuesday, August'20, the employ-
ees were directed by their foremen to attend a meeting in the scales office at South
3d Street and about 45 to 50 attended. Adrian Wells, Willis Wells, and Max Stults
were present and Adrian Wells presided. He outlined the benefits which the Com-
pany had extended to the employees and, according to MacMahill's testimony:
Mr. Adrian Wells said that there was or there has been a question as to what
would happen to the profit-sharing plan in ... the event that the Union was to
come in and he said there was a provision to take care of such a matter.13
10 The "DO's and DON'T ' s" memorandum to the foremen deals with their conduct during
union organizational drives and was dated July 30.
"The effort by company counsel to suggest , during Willis Wells' testimony , that the
no-posting order was dictated by the danger that such notices , insecurely fastened, might
fall into the grain , finds no support in Wells' or any other testimony . On the contrary,
as Wells testified , such postings were invited Moreover , the wording of the notice
strongly indicates , and I find , that it was directed against union material.
""Don" is Don Williams and Chapman ' s use of his given name only may be explained
by the fact that he is Chapman ' s son - in-law
13 While only MacMahill, of the three employee witnesses , testified that Adrian Wells
made this statement , I credit his testimony and find that it was made in substantially
those words . In reaching this conclusion, I take into consideration not only the demeanor
of the witnesses, but the peculiar form of Wells' denials-negative pregnants-that
this meeting was held and this subject discussed . Both Valentine and Starkey
testified that there was a meeting at the South 3d Street plant a few days prior to
the first election at which Adrian Wells spoke ; Starkey also testified that he attended
all three meetings of the employees , including one at South 3d Street, and
that at the meeting at South 3d Street he did not see a recording machine at the front
of the room although he saw such a machine at one , at least , of the other meetings.
Since Respondent carefully pointed out, in connection with the two admitted meetings,
that the transcripts of Adrian Wells ' speeches were made from a recording , I consider
Starkey ' s testimony corroborative of the fact that a meeting at South 3d Street was
held. On the testimony and demeanor of the three employees and Adrian Wells, I find
that Adrian Wells ' testimony-both as to denials on this point and otherwise-is not
credible where contradicted
RALPH WELLS & CO. 1391
The Company maintains an employees ' profit-sharing plan which , notwithstanding
its label , is a pension plan based upon company contributions into a trust fund. All
employees participate in its benefits after 2 years' service as "eligible " employees.
Upon becoming a participant , each employee is given a printed booklet stating the
terms and provisions of the plan.
Section 1 .04 of the plan reads as follows:
1.04 Any employee who, during his employment by this Company is or
becomes a member of any collective bargaining unit shall be and become
ineligible from the date the employee becomes a member of such organization,
with the same effect upon the rights of such employee hereunder as if such
employee had voluntarily terminated his employment.
There is no dispute that this section remained in the plan-although the Company
denied that it had ever been invoked-until December 18, 1963, when it was deleted
by a resolution of the board of directors of the Company.14
6. Adrian Wells' speech of August 23
On the day following the first election , Adrian Wells called a meeting and about
70 of the Company 's employees assembled in the cafeteria at the South D Street
plant . He read them a speech , which was recorded by machine and then transcribed.
The same speech was delivered twice thereafter to the employees on the other shifts.
The transcript produced from the Company 's file is the only evidence concerning its
contents.
7. Max Stints' letter of August 26
On August 26 each employee found in his timecard rack a letter on the Company's
letterhead which began : "Compare where your own interests lie," and was signed by
Max E. Stults . Attached to each letter was another sheet listing , in two columns, the
alleged aims and desires of the Company as against those of "The Machinists' Orga-
nizer." There is no dispute concerning the form or contents of the letter or of the
attachment thereto. Such comment thereon as is necessary will follow in the con-
clusionary findings below.
8. The "NO" stickers
Shortly after lunch on August 27, Foreman Clayton was in his office in the cereal
plant holding a handful of stickers he had taken out of a box in the company office at
South 3d Street . The stickers measure 33/s inches wide and 21/4 inches high ; they have
a dark blue border, 1/4 inch wide, around a white field upon which appears, in red
block letters 11/4 inches high and 1/4 inch thick, the word "NO." The backs of the
stickers are coated with an adhesive which is effective on cloth but this adhesive is
covered , until the sticker is readied for use, with a waxed paper backing which is
easily removed.
As John Starkey returned from lunch , Clayton, with a "NO" sticker in his hand,
asked him whether he wanted one. Starkey said he did not but Clayton got up out
of his chair and started toward Starkey to put it on him. Starkey told Clayton that if
he put that sticker on him , he, Starkey, would go right into Willis Wells' office and
have Wells remove it. Clayton desisted.
Clayton then went into the plant and came to MacMahill , holding out a sticker
ready for use, and saying : "Here, you need one of these ." MacMahill brushed
Clayton's arm aside, remarking that nobody was going to put one of the stickers on
him. Clayton said that MacMahill was to wear one because the Company had paid
for the uniform he was wearing and he succeeded in getting a sticker on part of the
Machinists button MacMahill was wearing . MacMahill tore the sticker off and
dropped it in the waste can. After leaving MacMahill, Clayton approached Valentine
at his work , pulled the backing off a sticker and reached it toward him, again saying,
"Here, you need one of these." Valentine, who was also wearing a Machinists
button, stepped back and the sticker fell to the floor . Clayton then moved on through
the portion of the plant he supervised , giving stickers to those who would accept them.
When one of them said he did not want it, Clayton answered by asking the employee
where he wanted it.
Clayton, and the small group of employees accompanying him, then surrounded
Dean Simpson , an employee wearing a Machinists button. Clayton managed to get
24A new printing of the booklet , revised March 17, 1964 , omits this provision and
renumbers as section 1.04 the section formerly numbered 1.05.
1392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a sticker on Simpson and, as soon as he had done so , the others swarmed over Simp-
son putting stickers on him so that , as MacMahill testified , he "had them all over
him" as he continued to work.15
9. Threat of violence
Later that same afternoon , just before the change of shifts at 3 p.m., Foreman
Clayton talked to the "cookers " at their work stations . He told them not to punch
out as there was to be a meeting of the employees at the South D Street plant.
MacMahill remarked that he supposed "this was another long-winded meeting coming
up" and Clayton said, if he had his way he "would knock some sense into some of
those Union punks' heads." MacMahill answered that nothing could be gained by
violence, to which Clayton replied : "Maybe not , but it has worked before."
Clayton's denial is rejected and I find that he made the statements.
10. Adrian Wells' speech of August 27
At the meeting that followed , Adrian Wells again addressed the employees and had
his speech recorded. The transcript of the recording was produced from the Com-
pany's files and its accuracy has not been questioned.
11. The safety committee
On September 9 the Company established a formal safety committee by posting
a notice explaining the purpose of the committee and directing that a representative of
each of six named groups be chosen by the employees in that group . These six, with
the addition of Stults, Willis Wells, and John Featherstone , as representatives of
management , were designated to constitute the committee . The notice also provided
for the terms, successorship , and compensation 16 of the employee members, for
meeting dates and for the keeping of minutes.17
John Starkey was elected representative of one of the groups of employees at
South 3d Street and attended the two formal meetings of the committee , on Septem-
ber 11 and October 9. He testified that at the first meeting Stults, who was chairman
of the committee , stated that it would cover-
working conditions and gripes and complaints ... everything ... it would improve
communications from the top to the bottom and from the bottom to the top ...
cover grievances , safety and everything.
Stults also gave a detailed description of the procedure to be followed "if there was a
grievance : safety, working condition or anything " which included initial submission
of the matter to the foreman , ". . . give him a reasonable amount of time to look into
it and then, if it wasn 't taken care of, he was to bring it to the Safety Committee
members." Adrian Wells testified that, in his opinion , safety is related to the welfare,
production , and profits of the Company and, conversely , that the conditions under
which the employees work are "intimately tied with safety."
Starkey agreed that the business conducted at these meetings is accurately reflected
in the written minutes and he did not recall that there had been any actual discussion
of wage rates or hours of employment . Nor did he recall, contrary to the testimony
of Stults and employee Lauren White, that discussion of any subject was ruled out of
order as improper at a meeting of the safety committee.
By reason of his direct interest in this matter , particularly in the challenged status
of the safety committee , the inconsistencies between different parts of his testimony,
and his demeanor while testifying , I cannot credit the testimony of Stults where it is
15 The foregoing account is based upon the credited testimony of Starkey , Valentine,
and AlacMlahill Clayton admitted that he passed out the stickers among the men he
supervised and that he said, "Here, you want a sticker ." He denied trying to put the
stickers on the employees but admitted that 1%lacMahill, in refusing one, "knocked my
hand away " He also admitted that he "handed " a sticker to Valentine "but he didn't
want it-but he didn ' t say nothing " Clayton was a reluctant and evasive witness whose
demeanor and manner of testifying convince me that his answers were more concerned
with aiding the Company than revealing the facts . His denials are rejected.
16 At the regular hourly rates , plus travel time if not on duty.
17 This was done by a secretary in the executive office of the Company
RALPH WELLS & CO. 1393
contradicted by that of Starkey, who testified carefully and, I find, credibly.18 More-
over, Stults' testimony that matters not connected with safety were not discussed
and White's testimony that Stults refused to discuss the profit-sharing plan are both
contradicted by the minutes of the meeting of October 9. Under the heading "New
Business" item numbered 14 is: "Explanation of differences in old and new Profit
Sharing booklets."
There is no evidence that the safety committee held any formal meetings other than
those of September 11 and October 9, and the notice concerning its establishment
was taken down on November 26.
D. Conclusions as to matters alleged as violations of Section 8(a)(1)
1. The interrogation of MacMahill and Valentine by Willis Wells concerning the
placing of the radio announcement of the Machinists meeting did not deal with any
matter upon which the Company was entitled to have information. On the contrary,
it dealt solely with the self-organizational rights of the employees. The tone of the
questioning was coercive and the statement that, while the law protected the employ-
ees "now but it wouldn't always," constituted a threat. I conclude that the entire
incident was violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act
2. Willis Wells' attempt to put MacMahill and Valentine "on probation" for 6
months as a result of the occurrences at the Machinists' meeting and his statement that
he was "ashamed" of them also dealt with these employees' exercise of their rights
under the Act and constituted interference therewith in violation of Section 8 (a) (1)
thereof.
3. Contrary to the argument of Respondent that the antisolicitation rule and the
"no posting" notice were general in nature, the language of both, as well as the timing
of their promulgation, shows, and I find, that they were directed principally against,
and designated to interfere with the self-organizing activities of the Company's
employees. Under these circumstances, Respondent's reliance upon the Supreme
Court's decisions in Nutone and Avondale Mills 19 is misplaced. The rule properly
applicable to this case is, in my opinion, that set forth by the Supreme Court in the
Republic Aviation and Le Tourneau cases 20 and, notwithstanding the Company's
alleged lack of enforcement thereof,21 the existence of the rule and notice constituted
continuing interference with the self-organizational rights of the employees and vio-
lated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.22
4. Chapman's notation in his timebook concerning attendance by four employees
at a "union" meeting was erased by Willis Wells when Starkey protested its presence.
In the light, however, of the Company's instructions to its foremen to counter the
organizational campaign, of Wells' expressions of outrage at the exclusion of the
foremen from the Machinists meeting in Galesburg and of his statement that he knew
there were more than four at that meeting, I must conclude that Respondent deliber-
ately created and fostered the impression that it was keeping the employees' self-
organizing activities under surveillance. In my opinion, Wells' erasure of Chapman's
notation did nothing to diminish this impression. Such conduct interferes with and
restrains the employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act and constitutes a
violation of Section 8 (a) (1) thereof 23
38 The testimony of Willis Wells on the subject of the safety committee contains so
many self-contradictions as to be almost unintelligible. It was given so vaguely and
haltingly that I must conclude that the witness, undoubtedly an intelligent man, was
trying to support the Company's defense rather than make truthful answers to the
questions.
IS N L.R.B. v. United Steelworkers of America, CIO (Nutone, Inc.); N.L.R.B. v Avon-
dale Mills, 357 U.S. 357.
20 Republic Aviation Corporation v. NLRB.; N.L.R.B. v. Le Tourneau Company of
Georgia, 324 U S. 793.
21 Respondent's additional argument that the antisolicitation rule may be interpreted as
applying only to "working time" within the doctrine of Peyton Packing Co (49 NLRB
828, 843-844) is irrelevant and is rejected. The posted rule explicitly brackets "rest
periods" with "lunch periods for which you are paid," thus notifying the employees that
the Company's standard is whether the time is "paid." See Solo Cup Company, 144
NLRB 1481
22 See N.L R B. v. United Aircraft Corp, et at. , 324 F 2d 128 (CA. 2) ; Walton Manu-
facturing Company, 126 NLRB 697, enfd 289 F. 2d 177 (CA. 5) ; Southwire Company,
145 NLRB 1329
23 Byrds Manufacturing Corp., 140 NLRB 147, 152.
783-133-66-vol. 151-89
1394 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. The provisions of the employees' profit-sharing plan in this case are practically
identical with those found violative of the Act by the Board and the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals in Melville Confections, Inc. (142 NLRB 1334; enfd. 327 F. 2d
689),24 and the relevant conduct of the employer in that case was far less pointed 25
than that of Respondent here. Contrary to the statement in Respondent's brief that
the penalty clause, section 1.04, is not self-executing, the language thereof shows that
it is and I so find. The existence of this clause and Willis Wells' reference to it con-
stituted a threat of reprisal against employees for their exercise of rights guaranteed
them in the Act and violates Section 8(a) (1) thereof.
6. Adrian Wells' speech of August 23 was mostly devoted to a concession that not
enough attention had been paid to the employees' views, to a promise to do better in
the future and a request for "another chance " It appears to be no more than an
exhortation for votes against the Machinists in the upcoming runoff election. There
is no threat of loss of employment or any attempted infusion of a "factual" basis for
a prediction thereof, as in Haynes Stellite Company, Division of Union Carbide
Corporation,26 cited by the General Counsel.
7 Max Stults' letter of August 26 and the enclosed "comparison" emphasize the
probability of strikes and wage losses should the Machinists be chosen as their
representative by the employees The tone, however, is persuasive and I am unable
to conclude that they contain any statements constituting interference, restraint, or
coercion violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.27
8. Foreman Clayton's conduct on August 27 in connection with the "No" stickers
was unvarnished and indefensible physical bullying. He is a man of strong appear-
ance, whereas both MacMahill and Valentine are much thinner. His statements to
Starkey, MacMahill, and Valentine that they "needed" the "No" stickers and should
wear them because the Company paid for the uniforms they were wearing, coupled
with his attempts to put the stickers on the persons of these employees by force, was
an intimidatory and coercive attempt to compel them to declare themselves opposed
to the Machinists 28 and was violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
9. Clayton's statement that if he had his way, he would "knock some sense into
some of those union punks' heads" is, according to Respondent's brief, not a threat
because not directed at any particular individual. This contention must be rejected:
not only was Clayton's identification of the heads into which he would "knock some
sense" as the "union punks" reasonably adequate, but his performance with the "No"
stickers, earlier that afternoon, coupled with his statement that violence "has worked,"
might reasonably infer that his choice of heads to "knock" might well include those of
employees favoring the Machinists These threats, I conclude, restrained and coerced
the employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization and violate Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act.29
10. Adrian Wells' speech on the afternoon of August 27 was delivered shortly
after Clayton's activities set forth in the two preceding paragraphs and cannot be
separated therefrom. Clayton, as the record shows, was closely associated with
Willis Wells in the Company's activities concerning the Machinists meeting of Au-
gust 3 and the "No" stickers which he handed out came from the company office.30
21 "Eligible employee" was defined, in the plan in that case, as "a regular full-time
employee of the Company not represented by a Union designated as the bargaining
agent for the employee "
25 The plant had been in existence since 1958. In July 1960, during a preelection
campaign, the employer read the eligibility provision to the employees without comment
but, on the basis thereof, objections to the election were sustained. Thereafter, in
May 1961, a "Statement of Company Policies," which substantially restated the pro-
visions, was distributed to the employees. No further affirmative action was taken by
the employer. On a charge filed September 18, 1962, however, both the Board and the
court held that the mere existence of the provision, and without proof of coercive intent,
constituted a violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
26 136 NLRB 95 , set aside sub nom. Union Carbide Corp v. N.L.R.B., 310 F. 2d 844
(C.A. 6).
2T See: Elgin Butler Brick Company, 147 NLRB 1624.
28Beiser Aviation Corporation, 135 NLRB 399, 400; Earle Industries, Inc, 146
NLRB 536.
29 H. R. McBride Construction Company, 122 NLRB 1634.
3 It is also to be noted that Clayton, although the actual supervisor of MacMahill,
Valentine, Starkey, and the others involved at the time of these occurrences, held only
the rank of "assistant supervisor" and that he was, on September 1, promoted to full
"foreman."
RALPH WELLS & CO. 1395
Although the speech must be considered against this background, I conclude that by
its own terms, it contained several threats against the employees should they choose
the Machinists as their representative:
(a) The Machinists representatives are labeled as "troublemakers."
(b) Employees are threatened with discharge if they engage in "unlawful activities
of the union on business premises." In view of the then existing antisolicitation and
"no-posting" rules-both of which are themselves held unlawful herein-it is reason-
able to conclude, as I here do, that Wells intended to convey the message that the
Company's determination of the "unlawfulness" of union activities would be measured
by those regulations and that union activity in the plant, regardless of time and place,
might result in discharge.
(c) The carefully listed sequence of expected events; i.e , that the Machinists
leaders will make "wild and reckless economic pi omises" to the employees, promises
of "the moon" and (stated as a present fact) that they "threaten" the Company's
president; that the Company cannot be forced to make any concession (with the
strong implication that none will be made); that the Union will call the employees
out on strike (to pull "their"-the "union troublemakers"-chestnuts out of the fire)
and that the Company then can permanently replace the employees. This list, coupled
with Wells' statement that the Machinists representatives "are going to eat" after the
election and that so will he-but "what about you?" constitutes, in my opinion, a
threat of economic reprisal should the employees designate the Machinists as their
representative.
(d) The statement that the packing plants-industries similar to that of the Com-
pany-which are the "most heavily organized and unionized" have "the greatest
number of layoffs ... and closings" is, in context, a threat of similar action.
(e) Assurance that he will "talk, talk" with the Machinists, coupled with the warn-
ing that "no law requires" that any request be granted, carries an implication that none
will be granted. This, later elaborated into the statement that, if the Machinists
bring their "experts" in, he "can hire people to sit across the table from them. Men so
good that they have spent years, in some cases, negotiating in good faith, for con-
tracts that did not materialize" constitutes, I conclude, a threat that the Company
would never sign a contract with a labor organization chosen by the employees as
their representative.31 Wells' statement that his words were not a threat but a "state-
ment of fact and law" cannot serve to veil their true character or to change the idea
reasonably conveyed by his words in context with his actions.
Taken as a whole, I conclude that the speech interfered with, restrained, and coerced
the employees and constituted a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
E. Conclusions as to matters alleged as violation of Section 8(a)(2)
It is obvious that a concern for safety is both proper and necessary in any operation
involving the physical presence of human beings-particularly those operations involv-
ing bulky objects and machinery. All of these are essential in the type of activity
in which the Company is engaged. Moreover, the evidence herein shows, without
dispute, that the insurance carrier for the Company was disturbed by the accident
rate and recommended steps directed to its reduction. It follows, therefore, that the
Company's concern for safety justified activities in this area.
The safety committee organized by the Company on September 5, however, despite
its avowed purpose "to promote safety," also declared that it was to "improve work-
ing conditions on a company-wide basis" and that it was designed "to aid and further-
.. . the normal procedure of hourly personnel taking requests and suggestions to their
foreman." In fact, after the title and opening words, the announcement does not
again refer to safety. The tone of the document is consistent, moreover, with Stults'
statement as the first meeting that the committee would cover "grievances, safety and
everything." It is also clear that some of the problems dealt with between representa-
tives of the Company and the employees at these meetings affected compensation and
other terms and conditions of employment and that the connection with safety of
some of the others is somewhat tenuous. To the extent of such dealings, therefore,
the safety committee was a labor organization,32 and Respondent, which admittedly
dominated its organization and administration, thereby violated Section 8(a)(2) of
31 See Michael Benevento et at., d/b/a H. Benevento Sand & Gravel Co., 131 NLRB
358, 366.
32 N.L R B v. Cabot Carbon Company, 360 U S. 203, directing enforcement of 117 NLRB
1633 ; Pacemaker Corporation, 120 NLRB 987, enfd. 260 F. 2d 880 (C A. 7) ; Thompson
Rama Wooldridge, Inc, 132 NLRB 993, enfd 305 F. 2d 807 (C.A. 7) ; Han-Dee Sprang
& Mfg Co , 132 NLRB 1542.
1396 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Act. Moreover, the administration of this organization in dealing with the Com-
pany on such matters interfered with the employees' rights of self-organization, and,
therefore, it also violated Section 8 (a) (1) thereof.33
V. THE OBJECTIONS TO THE ELECTION
A. The facts
As stated above, most of the Machinists' objections to the election are based upon
the same activities of the Company alleged in the complaint as violations of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act and set forth in subparagraphs 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, above. In
addition to these activities the objection marked "FIFTH" reads as follows:
The Employer called individual employees into the office during the week of
August 26, 1963, and tried to influence their votes and tried to get them to stop
wearing union buttons.
The evidence in support of this objection is not in dispute and shows that, about a
week before the first election on August 22, the Machinists distributed large white
buttons bearing the words "VOTE TAM / AFL-CIO." Several employees wore them,
and there appears to have been no controversy about them except for the following
incidents.
John Starkey works at the grain elevator at South 3d Street, receiving grain from
farmers who either sell it to the Company or wish to store it in the elevator. After
the grain has been weighed, Starkey dumps it into the appropriate bins and moves it
to storage places.
On Saturday, August 24, Willis Wells asked Starkey, who was wearing one of the
Machinists buttons, to remove it. Starkey asked why and Wells said he did not think
it "good taste" to wear any buttons with customers present The record does not dis-
close whether Starkey removed it. The following Monday, August 26, Wells
assembled the elevator crew and requested that none of them wear any buttons,
"pro or con," while waiting on customers. He said that it was a request and, if they
wished, they could wear them. One man offered Wells the button he was wearing
but Wells refused it, saying that he was only requesting that they not be worn while
dealing with customers. Thereafter, according to Wells, none of the men wore the
buttons.
B. Conclusions
In agreeing to the runoff election of August 29, the Machinists waived any objec-
tions they might have had to the earlier election on August 22 and, therefore, company
conduct before that date may not be considered herein. The antisolicitation and no-
posting rules, and section 1.04 of the employees' profit-sharing plan, however, con-
tinued in effect after August 22 and, together with the activities between August 23
and 27, must be evaluated in determining whether by these activities the Company
improperly interfered with the employees' freedom of choice and, therefore, with
the conduct of the election.
The antisolicitation and no-posting rules, section 1.04 of the employees' profit-
sharing plan, Clayton's activities with the "NO" stickers and his threats of violence and
Adrian Wells' speech of August 27, have all been held to constitute interference,
coercion, and restraint in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. As the Board
stated in Dal-Tex Optical Company, Inc. (137 NLRB 1782 at 1786) :
Conduct violative of Section 8 (a) (1) is, a fortiori, conduct which interferes with
a free and untrammeled choice in an election.34
Accordingly, I shall recommend that objections to the election numbered "THIRD,"
"FOURTH," "SIXTH," and "SEVENTH" be sustained.
The evidence in support of the objection marked "FIFTH" is inconclusive. A
rule prohibiting employees from wearing union insignia would be presumptively
invalid in the absence of adequate justification therefor.35 Wells' reference to the
employees' contact with customers would not necessarily constitute such justifica-
33 Walton Manufacturing Company, 126 NLRB 697, enfd. 289 F. 2d 177 (CA 5)
34 See also: as to the "NO" stickers: The Chas. V. Weise Co., 133 NLRB 765; as to
the antisolicitation rule, Revere Camera Company, 133 NLRB 1658; Armstrong Cork
Company, 109 NLRB 1341 ; and Johnston Lawnmower Corporation, 107 NLRB 1086; as
to Adrian Wells' speech of August 27: Oak Manufacturing Company, 141 NLRB 1323
3c Republic Aviation Corporation v N L R B, 324 U S. 793, S02, Kimble Glass Com-
pany, 113 NLRB 577, enfd. 230 P. 2d 484 (C.A 6)
RALPH WELLS & CO. 1397
tion.36 There is no proof, however, that Starkey removed his button or that Wells
exerted any further pressure on him to do so. The nature of Wells' request to the
crew not to wear the buttons while waiting on customers appears to me insufficient
to have interfered with the free choice of the employees in the election. Accord-
ingly, I shall recommend that this objection be overruled.
In view of the objections which I have sustained, I recommend that the election
of August 29 be set aside and a new election ordered at the earliest appropriate
date.
VI. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section IV, occurring in connection
with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing the free flow thereof.
VII. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices violative
of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
Notwithstanding the removal of the antisolicitation and no-posting rules herein
held violative of the Act and notwithstanding the removal of section 1.04 from the
employees' profit-sharing plan, it will be recommended that the notices to be posted
contain appropriate language to notify the employees that their existence contravenes
the provisions of the Act.
The safety committee having been found to be a labor organization to the extent
that it proposes to deal and has dealt with Respondent with respect to wages, hours,
and other terms and conditions of employment, it will be recommended that it be
"disestablished" to that extent and that recognition be withdrawn from it as the repre-
sentative of any of the employees for that purpose. This does not mean that the
safety committee may not continue to function in areas other than those involving
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.
Because the Respondent by its conduct violated fundamental employee rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and because there appears from the manner of
commission of this conduct a disposition to commit other unfair labor practices, it
will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist in any manner from
infringing upon rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 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. Ralph Wells & Co. is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the
Act and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
2. International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, is 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
their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act in the manner hereinabove found, the
Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. By dominating and interfering with the administration of the safety committee
and dealing with it with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. The allegations in the complaint of interference, restraint, and coercion other
than found herein, have not been sustained.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire
record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations
36 Floridan Hotel of Tampa, Inc ., 137 NLRB 1484, enfd. 318 F . 2d 545 (C.A. 5) , Harrah's
Club, 143 NLRB 1356.
1398 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Act, as amended, I recommend that Respondent, Ralph Wells & Co., its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from-
(a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in their exercise of rights
guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act by: (1) promulgating and maintaining unjus-
tified antisolicitation and no-posting rules; (2) making notations concerning attend-
ance of employees at union meetings to give them the impression that their
self-organizational activities are being kept under surveillance; (3) maintaining a
provision in the employees' profit-sharing plan which excludes from the operation
thereof any employee who becomes a member of a bargaining unit or labor organi-
zation; (4) compelling or attempting to compel employees to wear stickers or insignia
indicating opposition to a labor organization; (5) threatening violence to any
employee or any other person involved in the self-organizational activities of its
employees; (6) threatening to cease operation of its plant, threatening to discharge
employees for engaging in union activities on its premises, or threatening not to bar-
gain in good faith with a labor organization designated by the employees as their
collective-bargaining representative.
(b) Dominating the administration of the safety committee and dealing with it
as the representative of employees with respect to wages, hours, and other terms
and conditions of employment.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist International
Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activity for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection or
to refrain from engaging in such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its plant in Monmouth, Illinois, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 37 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 13, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the
Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it
for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in writing, within 20 days from
the receipt of this Decision and Recommended Order, what steps it has taken to
comply herewith 38
It is further recommended that the election which was conducted in a unit of
Respondent's employees on August 29, 1963, be set aside and that a new election be
directed at an appropriate time by the Regional Director for Region 13. It is further
recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of Sec-
tion 8(a) (1) of the Act not found herein and that the objection "FIFTH" to conduct
affecting the results of the election in Case No. 13-RC-9604 be overruled.
In the event that 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 In the further event that the Board's Order is 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."
In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in writing, within
10 days from the date of receipt of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to
comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relation Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees concerning their union
sentiments or desires or their activities on behalf of International Association
of Machinists, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
AMERICAN STANDARD CARGO CONTAINER COMPANY 1399
WE WILL NOT make notations concerning union activities by our employees
designed to give the impression that we are keeping such activities under
surveillance.
WE WILL NOT promulgate or enforce antisolicitation or no-posting rules which
prohibit our employees from discussing union matters during nonworking time
or posting union notices in the plant or on the plant premises.
WE WILL NOT insert or maintain, in our employees' profit-sharing plan or
other pension plan for our employees, any provision which makes an employee
ineligible to participate therein because he becomes or remains a member of a
collective-bargaining unit or any labor organization.
WE WILL NOT force or attempt to force any of our employees to wear "NO"
stickers or any device or emblem indicating opposition to any labor organization.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with violence for activities on behalf
of the said labor organization or any other labor organization and we will not
threaten violence against officials or members of any labor organization.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with loss of employment or other
reprisals by reason of their activities on behalf of the aforesaid or any other
labor organization or for choosing the aforesaid or any other labor organization
as their collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL neither dominate nor interfere with the administration of the safety
committee nor will we deal with it insofar as it purports to act as the representa-
tive of any of our employees with respect to wages, hours, or terms or conditions
of employment. We hereby disestablish the Safety Committee to the extent
that we have authorized it to deal with us as a representative of our employees
with respect to wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment and to
the extent that it has dealt with us as to such matters.
WE WILL NOT, in any other manner, interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their rights: (1) to self-organization; (2) to form
labor organizations; (3) to join or assist International Association of Machinists,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization; (4) to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing or to engage in other concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection or to
refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may
be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain or to refrain from becoming or
remaining members of the above-named or any other labor organization except to
the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement authorized by Section
8(a)(3) as aforesaid.
RALPH WELLS & CO.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive 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, 881 U. S.
Courthouse and Federal Office Building, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illi-
nois, Telephone No. 828-7572, if they have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions.
American Standard Cargo Container Company and Millmen's
Union No. 550 , United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners
of America , AFL-CIO and Sheet Metal Workers International
Association , Local Union No. 355, AFL-CIO, Party to the Con-
tract. Case No. 20-CA-2825. April 2, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 2, 1964, Trial Examiner Henry S. Salim issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent
151 NLRB No. 135.