Southwestern of Dallas Optical Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 17, 1965

153 N.L.R.B. 33 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

SOUTHWESTERN OF DALLAS OPTICAL COMPANY, ETC. 33
If the employees have any questions concerning this notice or whether the Em-
ployer is complying with its provisions, they may communicate with the Board's
Regional Office, 6617 Federal Office Building, 515 Rusk Avenue, Houston, Texas,
Telephone No. Capitol 8-0611, Extension 296.
Southwestern of Dallas Optical Company and Tru-Optics, Inc.
and International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine
Workers, AFL-CIO. Case No. 16-CA-g174. June 17, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 6, 1965, Trial Examiner Robert Cohn issued his Decision
in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in certain -unfair labor practices and rec-
ommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and 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 Ex-
aminer's Decision, the exceptions, and the entire record in the case, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and orders that
Respondent, Southwestern of Dallas Optical Company and Tru-
Optics, Inc., Dallas, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom-
mended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed November 5, 1964,1 by the International Union of Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union , the General Coun-
sel of the National Labor Relations Board, acting through the Regional Director for
Region 16 of the Board, issued his complaint on January 7, 1965, against Southwest-
ern of Dallas Optical Company, hereinafter called Southwestern and Tru-Optics, Inc.,
1 All dates hereinafter refer to the calendar year 1964 unless specifically noted otherwise.
153 NLRB No. 9.
796-027-66-vol 153-4
34 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hereinafter called Tru-Optics. The complaint alleged that the two corporations, be-
cause of common officers, ownership , directors , and operators constituted a single,
integrated business enterprise , and administered a common labor policy with respect
to their employees. The complaint further alleged that by engaging in certain de-
scribed conduct in October and November, the corporations, as a single employer
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called
the Act, interfered with, restrained , and coerced their employees in violation of Sec-
tion 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
The corporations, by answer, admitted service of the charge and the Board's juris-
diction, but denied that they constituted a single employer , as alleged in the com-
plaint , and further denied the commission of any unfair labor practices?
Upon the issues so joined, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Robert Cohn
in Dallas, Texas, on February 25, 1965. All parties were afforded full opportunity
to be heard, to introduce evidence , to examine and cross-examine witnesses , to present
oral argument , and to file briefs . Oral argument was waived . Briefs have been filed
by counsel for the General Counsel and for the companies, which have been carefully
considered.
Upon the entire record in this case , and from my observation of the witnesses and
their demeanor while testifying, I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES
The complaint alleges and the answer admits that both Southwestern and Tru-
Optics are, and have been at all times material, corporations engaged in the manufac-
ture and sale of optical lenses , having their principal office and place of business at
Dallas, Texas. It is further alleged and admitted that each company during the past
12 months, a representative period, sold and shipped finished products valued in
excess of $50,000 to customers outside the State of Texas. Upon these admitted
facts, I conclude and find that the operations of both Southwestern and Tru-Optics,
and each of them, affect commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it would
effectuate the policies of the Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction in this case.3
Respecting the issue of whether the two Companies involved constitute a single em-
ployer as that doctrine has been formulated and enunciated by the Board and courts,
the evidence shows, as above noted, that both corporations manufacture and sell opti-
cal lens produced to prescription specifications. The only difference in the product
is that Southwestern makes a better quality lens than Tru-Optics. Both corpora-
tions are housed in the same building and employ the same classifications of
employees . Some manufacturing operations such as rough grinding , polishing, and
fining of the lens is performed in the same laboratory for both Companies Both
firms occupy an office on the second floor of the building in which they are located,
and while each corporation maintains its own set of books and records and each pays
its own taxes, etc., the same accountants work on both Companies' books, and one
employee operates an Addressograph machine which produces labels for both com-
panies. On some occasions, perhaps once or twice a week, when there is a dire need
for employees at Southwestern, Tru-Optics employees will be borrowed or transferred
to help out the employees at Southwestern. When the employees of one Company
perform work for the other, their time is allocated to each through interoffice charge
backs.
Ownership of the two corporations is vested in the same family. Allen Bogart is
president and owner of both Companies. His wife, Trudy Bogart, is vice president of
both Companies. His son, Ted Bogart, is secretary-treasurer of Tru-Optics, and his
daughter, Phyllis Bogart Summer, is secretary-treasurer of Southwestern. Each
member of the family has an identical stock interest in both Companies, and there are
no other stockholders in either corporation other than the above-mentioned persons.
2 The companies also filed a motion for a more definite statement of facts. This motion
was denied in a prehearing order When counsel for the companies renewed his motion
at the hearing , I reaffirmed the previous order denying the motion , but advised that if
counsel for the companies required additional time at the close of the General Counsel's
case to prepare his defense, he could so move at that time and the ruling would be recon-
sidered The motion was not renewed ; rather, at the close of General Counsel's evidence,
the companies moved to dismiss the case and rested without offering any evidence. I
reserved ruling on the motion to dismiss ; it is disposed of through the findings, con-
clusions , and recommendations of this Decision.
3 Siemens Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81.
SOUTHWESTERN OF DALLAS OPTICAL COMPANY, ETC. 35
Southwestern was organized in 1939, while Tru-Optics did not come into being until
1959 or 1960 . Until 2 years ago, their operations were physically separated. How-
ever, as above noted, they are now located in the same building with some common
facilities . The fringe benefits of the employees of both Companies such as vacations,
holidays, insurance , and the like , are the same.
Upon these facts 4 which reflect a high degree of common ownership , control, and
direction of financial and labor relations policy, I conclude and find that , as contended
by General Counsel, Southwestern and Tru-Optics , hereinafter referred to as the
Respondent , constitute a single employer for the purposes of the Act .5
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The complaint alleges, the answer admits , and I find that International Union of
Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers , AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Solicitation of withdrawals from the Union
The complaint alleges that the Respondent solicited employees at its plant to with-
draw from the Union . The evidence discloses that two employees were involved in
this alleged conduct as follows:
1. Employee Darrell Bledsoe testified . that the Union commenced passing out
authorization cards in early October, and that he had signed a card and wore IUE
buttons in the plant thereafter . On or about October 20 , he had a conversation with
Southwestern 's personnel manager, Hollis Bridges .6 The conversation that ensued
can perhaps be best described in the words of the witness Bledsoe:
A. I went to Mr. Bridges and told him that I did not want to lose my job and
that I wanted to find someway of getting out of the union so I would not lose my
job that I had been told that he might could help me.
He said he could.
Q. (By Mr. HANNA. ) What all did he say to you at that time?
A. He told me that I would have to send in a withdrawal card to withdraw my
authorization to the IUE and that before I did that though he wanted to talk to
me about it all.
Q. Wanted to talk to you about what all?
A. Well, he wanted to discuss why I wanted to even mess with the union and
what caused me to go ahead and change my mind that I did not want it.
Q. Did you tell him what prompted you to go to the union and what prompted
you to change your mind?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did you tell him , please?
A. I told him that I did not feel like I was getting a proper raise in salary
when I signed the card and I did not, I felt like I was doing my job prior, that
they had let me go a long time until the IUE came down there and that-
Q. Let you go a long time , in what condition?
A. That they would have fired me, just fired me , if I had not been doing my
job properly.
After that discussion , and while in the office of Hollis Bridges, the latter handed
Bledsoe a blank postal card and told him what to write thereon. The language
Bridges dictated is as follows:
I hereby withdraw my authorization for you to act as an agent in my behalf,
this withdrowl [ sic] to take effect this date.
(S) Darrell Bledsoe
10/20/64
'All of the above evidence is based upon the uncontradicted testimony of Allen Bogart,
called as a witness by the General Counsel pursuant to the provisions of rule 43(b) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . Bogart was not interrogated respecting the al-
legations of unfair labor practices.
5 See P.B. & S. Chemical Company, et at., 148 NLRB 152; Disney Roofing & Material Co.,
et al., 145 NLRB 88; Sakrete of Northern California , Inc., 137 NLRB 1220 , enfd 332
F. 2d 902 ( C.A. 9), cert. denied 379 U S. 961 ; N.L.R.B. v. Elias Bros . Big Boy, Inc, et al.,
325 F. 2d 360 ( C.A. 6) ; N.L.R B. v . C-ibraltor Industries , Inc., et at. , 307 F. 2d 428 (C.A.
4), cert. denied 372 U.S. 911 ; N.L.R.B. v. Concrete Haulers, Inc, et at., 212 F. 2d 477
(C A. 5).
6 Bridges is an admitted supervisor within the meaning of Section 2 ( 11) of the Act.
36 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bridges also advised Bledsoe of the address of the IUE which Bledsoe wrote on the
front of the card and gave it to Bridges who said he would mail it.7
2. Patsy Sessions, an employee in Southwestern's shipping department, testified that
during the morning of October 29, Allen Bogart asked her if she had signed a card
and she replied in the affirmative. Later on that afternoon Bogart asked her if she
would be interested in a raise and a promotion and she again replied in the affirmative.
He told her that she was the oldest employee in the shipping department and that she
would get a 10-cent raise and some insurance after a month or two, and then asked
her if she would be interested in signing a retraction. She said "yes," if it would
mean that she would get the raise and the promotion. Sometime later that afternoon
Bogart took her to the office of George Griffin, an admitted supervisor of Southwest-
ern, and told her that Griffin would tell her where to send the retraction. The fol-
lowing took place in Griffin's office:
A. (SESSIONS.) I went in and I sat down and I asked him-he asked me
if I was there to sign a retraction and I said, "Yes" that I was.
So, he gave me a card and a pen and so I told him, "I don't know what to say
on it." He said, "Well, I will tell you like I have told everyone else; just ap-
proximately what I have told them." Then, he dictated the card and I wrote
it down and signed it and he gave me the address.
Q. (By Mr. HANNA.) You wrote that down on the card, too?
A Yes.
Q. Did you mail the card in')
A. No, sir.
Q. What did you do with the card?
A. I gave it back to George Griffin.8
Based upon the foregoing incidents, which are established by the uncontradicted
and undenied testimony of Bledsoe and Sessions, I find and conclude that Respondent
solicited and assisted its employees to withdraw from the Union. Respondent thereby
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaran-
teed in Section 7, violating Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.9 Even though in the case
of Bledsoe, the impetus for withdrawal came from the employee rather than the
supervisor, it is clear that by suggesting the manner of withdrawal, providing the
postal card, dictating the message to be placed upon the card, and mailing
the card for the employee, the Respondent's conduct "constituted more than mere
ministerial aid." 10
B. Interrogation of employees
1. On October 10, Matthew Roth, vice president of Southwestern,ii called Leslyn
Curtis, an employee in the Addressograph department, into his office He asked her
if she had heard anything about the Union and she replied that no one had spoken to
her personally but that she had read the material which had been distributed. Roth
went on to explain the company benefits and advantages and adjured Curtis that she
should take great care in considering whether to take part in the union activities.
2. On October 22, Allen Bogart came into the Addressograph department and ap-
proached Curtis. He asked her if she had heard anything about the union activities
and she explained that she had only read material on it, that no one had come to her
personally about it. Bogart asked her how she felt about "such matters," and she
responded that she thought "it was good for a company if the union was a good union,
that, because of that, I thought it would be good for us." Bogart asked her if she
had signed a card and she replied "Yes." Bogart thereupon left with the parting re-
mark that he thought Curtis had been "brainwashed." 12
7 He apparently did so ; the card was postmarked in Dallas in 1964, the exact date being
printed too dimly to verify by the naked eye. It is stamped as being received in the
Board's Regional Office on November 5 These dates become significant in view of Re-
spondent's contentions respecting the variance between the allegations of the complaint and
the proof.
S Griffin apparently mailed the card to the Union ; it is postmarked in Dallas, Texas, on
October 30
6 Movie Star, Inc., et at., 145 NLRB 319.
10 IS., at 320 ; see also Winn-Dixie Stores , Inc., et at. , 128 NLRB 574, 580.
n Bogart testified that Roth was vice president "in name only " In fact, as above noted,
Bogart's wife is the vice president ; however, Roth is personnel manager and a conceded
supervisor at Southwestern
12 The remaining instances of Interrogation disclosed by the evidence have been discussed
hereinabove under subparagraph A.
SOUTHWESTERN OF DALLAS OPTICAL COMPANY, ETC. 37
Respecting the issue of whether or not interrogation of employees concerning their
union activities constitutes interference, restraint, and coercion within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, it is true, as stated by able counsel for Respondent, that
"Interrogation is not a p,.r se violation of 8(a)(1)." 13 However, counsel's follow-
ing statement that "[T]here must be threats of economic or other reprisals" is not
supported, in my judgment, by the cases cited by him.14 Judge Gewin, in Weingar-
ten, stated:
To fall within the ambit of Section 8(a)(1), either the words themselves or the
context in which they are used must suggest an element of coercion or interfer-
ence. [Citations omitted.]
The foregoing statement of the court does not, in my view, go as far as counsel for
Respondent concludes. Rather it appears to square more precisely with the "totality
of conduct" rule adopted by the Board in Blue Flash Express, Inc.,15 where it is stated:
In our view the test is whether, under all circumstances, the interrogation reason-
ably tends to restrain or interfere with the employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by the Act.
In a more recent case of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, N.L.R.B. V.
Canto, Inc., 340 F. 2d 803, the court cites with approval the Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit's opinion in Bonnie Bourne, an individual, d/b/a Bourne Co. v.
N.L.R.B., 332 F. 2d 47, which sets forth five factors to be considered in weighing the
lawfulness of company interrogation of employees:
(1) The background, i e. is there a history of employer hostility and
discrimination?
(2) The nature of the information sought, e.g. did the interrogator appear to
be seeking information on which to base taking action against individual
employees?
(3) The identity of the questioner, i.e. how high was he in the company
hierarchy?
(4) Place and method of interrogation, e.g. was employee called from work
to the boss' office. Was there an atmosphere of "unnatural formality"?
(5) Truthfulness of the reply.ie
The Fifth Circuit, speaking through Judge Wisdom, hastens to add, however, that.
This list is not intended to be definitive and, as Professor Bok has pointed out,
intimidation may occur even if all of these factors cut in favor of the employer.
He warns that "employers must beware of interrogation unless (1) they have
valid purpose for obtaining information concerning the union's strength; (2)
they communicate this purpose to the employees; and (3) they assure the
employees that no reprisals will be taken."
Applying the facts of this case to the "Blue Flash thicket," it is true that the evidence
discloses no threats of economic or physical reprisal for engaging in union activities.
However, there is, of course, an element of coercion in President Bogart's promise of
benefit to Sessions which impliedly provoked her withdrawal from the Union.17 The
interrogation here was conducted by high officials of Respondent, some of which was
in the sanctuary of their offices; there had been no claim of majority status or request
for recognition by the Union, so that there appears to be no legitimate reason or pur-
pose for the questioning; 18 the actual purpose was, of course, not communicated to
the employees; and in neither case was any assurance given the employees that no
reprisals would be taken.
Accordingly, and in the context of all the circumstances as disclosed by the record,
I conclude and find that the interrogation engaged in by agents of the Respondent in-
terfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, thereby violating Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
13 Respondent's brief, p 5. See Blue Flash Express, Inc., 109 NLRB 591, 593; N.L.R B.
v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 339 F. 2d 498, 500 (C.A. 5).
14 In add: bon to Weingarten, supra, the case of Texas Industries, Inc., et at. v. N.L R.B.,
336 F. 2d 128 (C A. 5), is cited.
15 109 NLRB 591, at 593 See 17 Oklahoma Law Review 207, 210, et seq.
16 340 F. 2d, at 804
17 This is not alleged in the complaint as a violation of the Act, and no finding is based
thereon.
18 See, e.g., Union News Company, 112 NLRB 420, 424.
38 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. Credibility of witnesses; variance between proof and allegations
As above noted , Respondent offered no testimony in defense . Rather, it chose to
rest on the position that General Counsel had failed to prove a prima facie case be-
cause ( 1) there was material variance between the allegations of the complaint and
the proof ; and (2 ) credibility should be assessed against the witness Sessions because
of "her contradictory statements , [and] her bias against the Company. .
1. It is true , with respect to the variance between allegations and proof , there were
discrepancies in time that ranged from 1 to 16 days . I am aware of the vagueness
of witnesses ' recollections ; oft-times their memories of events change from time of
investigation to hearing . Sometimes these changes are material and may alter the
whole character and theory of the case , in which case an amendment of the com-
plaint is called for. Other variations are trivial and are of no consequence . The un-
derlying purpose is, of course , to advise the Respondent of the nature of the charges
against him , who, among his agents , is supposed to have committed the alleged unlaw-
ful acts, and when they occurred.
Here, as above stated, the only variance claimed is one of time . Even though
counsel for General Counsel admitted knowing before the hearing that the alleged
solicitation of Bledsoe by Bridges occurred on October 20 rather than November 5,
as alleged in the complaint , I am not prepared to dismiss that allegation of the com-
plaint on that ground even though I do not condone the sloppy pleading. When this
matter arose , I advised counsel for Respondent that I would give him additional time
to prepare his defense , if required . No such request was forthcoming ; indeed, as
above stated , Respondent offered no testimony in defense.
Therefore , I conclude and find that there was no substantial or material variations
between allegations and proof in this case ; that if there were such variations , the sub-
ject matter was fully litigated and Respondent was given opportunity and time to pre-
pare its defense . Accordingly , its motion to dismiss on this ground is denied.19
2. I have carefully read and considered the testimony of Patsy Sessions , particu-
larly in the light of Respondent's contentions respecting her incredibility . I judged
her demeanor while testifying , and she appeared to be an honest and forthright wit-
ness, although at times she had apparent difficulty in recalling the exact sequence of
events. She answered questions unhesitatingly and without evasion. Any undue
bias she may have had against Respondent was not apparent to me.20 I
do not regard any discrepancies between her testimony and prehearing affidavit as
being of a substantial nature. Moreover it appears that some such discrepancies may
have been induced by the artfulness ( or lack thereof ) of the Board 's interrogator.
In any event , I am convinced that her conversations with Allen Bogart occurred sub-
stantially as found hereinabove.21
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the
several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that Respondent interfered with, restrained , and coerced its
employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act, it will be recommended that
it cease and desist therefrom and post an appropriate notice.
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. Southwestern of Dallas Optical Company and Tru-Optics , Inc., are corporations
constituting a single employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and ( 7) of the Act.
19 G W Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co., Inc ., 97 NLRB 703 , 708-710
20 The parties stipulated that November 6 was Sessions ' last day of work with Respond-
ent, and that she has not thereafter worked for Respondent The cause for her leaving
was not disclosed by the record.
21 In making such finding, I have considered the fact that Bogart was in the hearing
room during the entire hearing , and did not take the witness stand to deny or explain
the sworn testimony of General Counsel's witness.
SOUTHWESTERN OF DALLAS OPTICAL COMPANY, ETC. 39
2. International Union of Electrical Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
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, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, it is recommended that Respondent, Southwestern of
Dallas Optical Company and Tru-Optics, Inc., Dallas, Texas, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their union membership, ac-
tivities, or desires.
(b) Soliciting and assisting employees to withdraw membership or adherence to
the Union.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of their rights to join, form, or assist International Union of
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage
in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of
the Act:
(a) Post in their plant at Dallas, Texas, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 22 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 16, after having been signed by an authorized representative of Respondent, be
posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be 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 16, in writing, within 20 days from
the receipt of this Decision and Recommended Order, what steps Respondent has taken
to comply therewith 23
It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed in all other respects.24
22 If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and
Order" in the notice shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner." 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"
a%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 Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply therewith "
241n his brief, counsel for General Counsel moved to strike the allegations of the com-
plaint relating to an alleged threat of economic reprisal (paragraph 8(b)). The motion
is granted
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify you that.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate employees concerning their union mem-
bership, activities, or desires.
WE "ILL NOT solicit or assist employees to withdraw or adhere to the Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
employees in the exercise of their rights to join, form, or assist International
Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their on choos-
ing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such
activities.
40 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All our employees are free to loin, form, or assist any labor organization, or to
refrain from doing so.
SOUTHWESTERN OF DALLAS OPTICAL COMPANY AND TRU-OPTICS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- Bv-----------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Sixth
Floor, Meacham Building, 110 West Fifth Street, Fort Worth, Texas, Telephone No.
Edison 5-4211, Extension 2131, if they have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions.
L. E. Farrell Company , Inc. and Chauffeurs , Teamsters, Ware-
housemen & Helpers , Local Union 597, a/w International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen &
Helpers of America. Case No. 1-CA-4678. June 17, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 6, 1965, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued his De-
cision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging 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 af-
firmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and a sup-
porting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, as amended,
the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in con-
nection with this case 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 Ex-
aminer's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner with the addition noted below.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
Order the Order recommended by the Trial Examiner, as modified
herein, and orders that L. E. Farrell Company, Inc., Burlington, Ver-
mont, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as so modified :
153 NLRB No. 5.