Waste King-Universal Products

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsSep 29, 1964

148 N.L.R.B. 1462 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

1462 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Cribben and Sexton Company, d/b/a Waste King-Universal Products and Stove , Furnace & Allied Appliance Workers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 26-CA-1721-2 and 26-RC-2086. September 29, 1964 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION On July 7, 1964, Trial Examiner Max Rosenberg issued his Deci- sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's De- cision. The Trial Examiner found further that this conduct was grounds for setting aside the January 21, 1964, election in the repre- sentation case. He also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended that such allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner. 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 and orders that Respondent, Cribben and Sexton Company, d/b/a Waste King-Universal Products, Alamo, Tennessee, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held January 21, 1964, among the employees of Cribben and Sexton Company, d/b/a. Waste King-Universal Products at its Alamo, Tennessee, plant, in the desig- nated unit, be and it hereby is, set aside. [Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.] 148 NLRB No. 140. WASTE KING-UNIVERSAL PRODUCTS 1463 TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE In Case No. 26-CA-172-2, an amended charge was filed on March 12, 1964, by Stove, Furnace & Allied Appliance Workers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, against Cribben and Sexton Company, d/b/a Waste King-Universal Products, herein called the Respondent.1 In Case No. 26- RC-2086, the Regional Director for Region 26 issued a report on objections on March 24, 1964, finding that certain of the objections (numbered 1, 2, 3, and 5) filed by the Union to the election conducted on January 21, 1964, among Respondent's employees in an appropriate unit, raised substantial and material issues of fact which could best be resolved by a hearing.2 On March 13, 1964, the General Counsel issued a com- plaint against Respondent, based upon the Union's amended charge and, on April 9, 1964, the Board issued an order consolidating the representation and complaint cases. The complaint alleges certain acts of interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and includes, inter alia, the same allegations in the Union's objections to the election which the Regional Director referred for hearing .3 On April 29, 1964, a hearing on the consolidated cases was held before Trial Examiner Max Rosenberg in Alamo, Tennessee. All parties were represented at the hearing, and at the close thereof, the General Counsel and the Respondent presented oral argument. A brief has been filed by the Respondent, which I have duly con- sidered. Upon consideration of the entire record in this proceeding, including my observa- tion of the witnesses as they appeared before me, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Respondent, an Illinois corporation, maintains a plant in Alamo, Tennessee, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and shipment of stoves. During the annual period material to these proceedings, Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, manufactured, sold, and shipped from its Alamo, Tennessee, plant, finished products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points located outside the State of Tennessee, and during the same period, purchased and received at its Alamo, Tennessee, plant, products valued in excess of $50,000 from points located outside the State. Respondent admits, and I find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND THE CONDUCT AFFECTING THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTION A. The contention of the parties The complaint alleges that Respondent , through certain admitted supervisors,4 violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by creating the impression of surveillance of its employees ' union activities ; by interrogating employees concerning their union activi- ties and sympathies ; by threatening employees that it would close and remove the 1 The original charge was filed and served on January 23. 1964 The election in a unit of Respondent's production and maintenance employees, includ- ing truckdrivers, was held pursuant to a petition filed on November 22, 1963 The Union lost the election by a vote of 105 to 52 and filed timely objections alleging coercive con- duct by the Employer which interfered with the election. 8 The only allegation in the complaint which does not have a parallel In the Union's objections is contained in paragraph 6 thereof It alleges that, on or about October 7, 1963, Supervisor Jacob H Forwith, Jr., created the impression of surveillance of the employees by informing an employee that he knew who had signed union cards and what the Union was doing 4 Respondent's answer admits that D. L Seals, S. E. Gordin, Jacob H. Forwith, Jr., James C Brendel, and William J. Perry, are supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(111 of the Act. 1464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD plant if they voted for or gave assistance to the Union and that it would be more strict in evaluating the job performance of union employees than nonunion employ- ees; by threatening employees with discharge or other reprisals if they supported or assisted the Union; and by promulgating, maintaining, and enforcing a rule prohibiting "unauthorized solicitation for any purpose." The General Counsel also urges that the Union's objections to the election, based in substantial part upon the allegations of the complaint, should be sustained and the election set aside. Respond- ent denies the commission of unfair labor practices and contends that the election results should stand. B The events Respondent commenced operating the Alamo, Tennessee, plant around the middle of 1963. The Union's organizational campaign began at some undisclosed date thereafter and culminated on January 21, 1964, when the Union was unsuccessful in the Board-conducted election in Case No. 26-RC-2086. The General Counsel's case rests upon the following testimonial and documentary evidence. Jimmy Gibbons was employed by Respondent in October 1963 in the packing department under the supervision of Foreman James C. Brendel. According to Gibbons' uncontroverted testimony, which I credit, he was working on the assembly line in early December 1963 when he observed Brendel conversing with employee Ralph Carnell a short distance away. ,In this conversation, Carnell informed Brendel that Gibbons was "one of the `Yes' men of the union." Brendel thereupon summoned Gibbons and another employee and stated "that the boys that he knew was for the Union, that when they worked and made a mistake he would fire them and the boys that he knew voted against the union, he would give them two or three chances." When Gibbons asked "Do you mean, that if I make one mistake you are going to fire me," Brendel replied that "I could take what he said and weigh it." Gibbons further testified that while he was in the washroom around January 1, 1964, Brendel stated to him "that if it wasn't for the boys in Maury City, they wouldn't have a union election in the first place." Gibbons told Brendel "that at the time I didn't know there was more than about 10 people from Maury City working at Waste King" and Brendel asked Gibbons whether the latter considered himself as 1 of the 10. Gibbons replied negatively. Employee Danny W. Vaughn was present in the room and Brendel informed Vaughn that the former had heard that Vaughn was "one of the union men" and that this intelligence had come to him "at a card game somewhere Friday night." Gibbons also testified to a conversation with Brendel prior to the election in which Brendel stated to Gibbons and two other employees "that if the union was voted out, it would mean a nickel raise to us." 5 Danny Vaughn was employed in July 1963 as an inspector on the assembly line. He credibly testified without contradiction that, prior to the election in January 1966, he overheard Brendel tell Gibbons that "most of the boys from Maury City was for the union...." Brendel then addressed Vaughn, stating that he had heard over the weekend that Vaughn "was for the union." Brendel refused to respond to Vaughn's query as to how the former obtained this information Quitman Hughes was in Respondent's employ for approximately 9 months as a finish sprayer, and worked under the supervision of Foreman Jacob H. Forwith, Jr. Hughes credibly testified that, on January 20, 1964, the day before the election, Forwith approached Hughes at work and told him "that there was only one question on the ballot; that I knew which way to vote. He said, if the union came in, said, it wouldn't do us any good because, he said, `You would have to go out on strike-to get more money, which you would have to do."' Forwith further told Hughes that "if we went out on a strike and I didn't show up for work, I could consider myself fired." Aaron C. Leggett worked for Respondent for 6 months as a pressroom repairman under the supervision of Foreman William J. Perry. It is Leggett's uncontroverted testimony which I credit that, 2 weeks before the election, Perry asked Leggett "how did I think the election was going," and Leggett replied that he did not know. Ap- proximately a day or two before the election, Plant Superintendent S. E. Gordin approached Leggett at his work station "and asked me about the same thing, how did I think the election was going," and Leggett again disclaimed any knowledge as 5 As the complaint does not allege that Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by this statement of Brendel, and the General Counsel does not contend for such a viola- tion, I make no findings with respect thereto. WASTE KING-UNIVERSAL PRODUCTS 1465 to the outcome of the balloting. Leggett then told Gordin that "You didn't ask me how I am going to vote and I'm not going to tell you," whereupon Gordin replied "We are not worrying too much about the men your age with a family voting for a union. We are worrying about the younger men that doesn't have any responsibility and can live at home with their folk and don't care too much about their jobs." Max Laman was employed by Respondent as a forklift operator from October 1963 to March 1964. I credit his undisputed testimony that, about a month before the election, Brendel "stopped me and told me that he heard that someone had told him that I was for the union." Laman expressed ignorance as to who could have con- veyed this information to Brendel because the former had not publicly indicated his feelings toward the Union. At this point, Brendel "started in just talking about that he didn't think the union could help or anything; that it might harm ... He said that if the union came in and the plant struck-I mean, the workers struck-that they would hire some more workers and that we would not be allowed to work there any more .... He said that if the plant , if the workers struck , that they could because of the right-to-work law in Tennessee, they could hire some more workers to take our places." Laman also testified that, about a week following this conversation with Brendel, he noticed Brendel talking to employee John Earndon in the pressroom. Brendel then proceeded to Laman's work station, at which time Earndon exclaimed to Laman that "I didn't say anything." When Brendel reached Laman, he informed the latter that Earndon had told him that Laman "was definitely for the union " While Brendel did not specifically ask Laman whether he was for the Union, Brendel "said somebody told him, that John had told him or something, that I was." Brendel then "went on and he started talking about that it wouldn't do any good; that it would only cause harm-about like the last one." Laman further testified that, the day before the election, Plant Superintendent Gordin spoke to him and stated that he, Gordin, ,"wasn't worried about the older people in the plant, how they would vote, but he wondered about the younger people without responsibility and he wanted me to not vote for the union , and that he wished everyone could have had the ex- perience that he had had with the union , in and out is the way he put it, in and out of the union." Earl Speer, who was employed by Respondent as a sprayer since July 1963 under Forwith's supervision, credibly testified that on. October 7, 1963, Forwith called all the men in his department into his office and "said that he could point out every man that had signed a union card and said that he bad information of what the union was doing. He also said that walking a picket line-if the union did come in-walking a picket line, that we could be replaced." In addition to the foregoing testimony, the General Counsel introduced into evi- dence a booklet entitled "Employees Handbook" containing plant rule 19 which forbids, on pain of discipline or discharge, "Unauthorized solicitation for any pur- pose" by employees. The parties stipulated that this rule had been posted by Re- spondent in the plant in July 1963; that it was subsequently collated with other plant rules and regulations and distributed in the booklet form to employees on November 26, 1963, by Respondent ; and, that the posted rule was not removed from the plant until April 28, 1964, the day before the hearing herein. The General Counsel relies upon this evidence to support his contention that the Respondent promulgated, main- tained, and enforced a no-solicitation rule which, because of its breadth, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The General Counsel also introduced into evidence, with the acquiescence of Respondent , a copy of a written speech which Plant Manager D. L. Seals delivered to the assembled employees on December 5, 1963. The portion of the speech upon which the General Counsel relies to support his contention that Respondent threatened employees that the plant would be closed if they voted for or assisted the Union, in violation of Section 8(a)(1), is the following excerpt: As many of you know I came to Waste King a short time ago from another stove manufacturer which is one of our strongest competitors . I can tell you that they would like nothing better than to see this plant shut down. They have told me that they expect to run us out of business. Did our competition send this union organizer over here to gamble with your jobs? I don't know but believe me it presents a dangerous threat to the security of your jobs. The sole witness called by the Respondent in support of its defense in these pro- ceedings was Forwith. Forwith was employed by Respondent as finishing department superintendent in May 1963 He testified that he first became aware of union activity at the plant in the middle of November 1963 as a result of group discussions with employees in his department at which an employee named Jerry Davis asked Forwith 1466 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD what the former 's status would be if the Union "should win the election." According to Forwith , the discussions always began by an employee posing a question concerning the Union to him , stating that "I don't think I ever opened the discussion , other than when someone confronted me with a question ." He denied that he had ever told an employee that - if the Union came in, "The only way you can get more money is to go out on strike and if you do, you can consider yourself fired ." When questioned on cross-examination as to whether he had stated to an employee that he "could point out every man who carried a union card," Forwith replied that he could not recall doing so "because I wouldn 't know of any validity to make that statement. I never saw a union card from this union. The only information I ever received regarding the Union , that was visible, was the union buttons. I guess I'm not too observing because I didn 't even know they were wearing a button until someone brought it to my attention . I don ' t scrutinize every employee as they walk in the door." Forwith further testified concerning events which transpired on December 5, 1963, relative to plant rule 19. After Plant Manager Seals addressed the assembled em- ployees on that date , Respondent Attorney McKnight also spoke to them . According to Forwith , McKnight told the employees that they "would be free to talk over union- ism, with the stipulations that he specified ." These stipulations "were that the people would not leave their work stations or call someone away from their work stations at any time to discuss these matters. Also , that there would be no threatening remarks made and that there would be no physical attacks on any of the employees that were pro or con ." At the hearing , Respondent's counsel , with commendable candor, stated that plant rule 19 which had been posted in the plant had not been removed therefrom until April 28, 1964. I do not credit Forwith 's testimony concerning his conversation with employees because I do not believe he was being completely forthright in that testimony. For- with did not deny Speer's testimony -that Forwith had remarked at a meeting of employees in the finishing department that he "could point out every man that had signed a union card and said that he had information of what the union was doing," he simply could not recollect so stating . Forwith admitted that he held weekly group meetings of his employees at which the Union was the topic of discussion, which would lend credence to Speer's testimony that the whole department was in attendance when Forwith made the statement which Speer attributed to him. More- over, I find it inconceivable that Forwith "didn't even know that they [the employees] were wearing a union button until someone brought it to my attention " because he did not "scrutinize every employee as they walk in the door," particularly in view of his testimony that he held weekly assemblages of his employees for discussion. Furthermore , Forwith 's testimony that he first learned of union activity in the middle of November when asked by employee Davis concerning the latter 's status if the Union "should win the election " lacks a true ring because , so far as the record shows, no election was discussed or consented to by the - parties until the first week of December. C. Conclusions Based on the testimony which I have heretofore credited , and the documentary evidence to which the parties stipulated , I conclude that Respondent engaged in interference , restraint , and coercion in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the following conduct: 1. Creating an impression of surveillance of the employees by Supervisor Forwith's statement to Speer that "he could - point out every man that had signed a union card" and that "he had information of what the union was doing." 6 2. Threatening employees that Respondent would be more strict in evaluating the job performance of union employees than nonunion employees by Brendel 's state- ment to Gibbons that "the boys that he knew was for the Union, that when they worked and made a mistake he would fire them and the boys that he knew voted against the union , he would give them two or three chances." 3. Threatening employees with discharge or other reprisals if they supported or assisted the Union by Forwith's statement to Hughes that , "if the union came in, .... it wouldn't do us any good because, he said, `You would have to go on strike to get more money, which you would have to do ,' " and by the further statement to Hughes that " if we went out on a strike and I didn't show up for work , I could con- 6 See Consolidated Welding & Engineering Company, 146 NLRB 739 WASTE KING-UNIVERSAL PRODUCTS 1467 sider myself fired," 7 and by the statement of Gordin to Leggett that "We are not worrying too much about the men your age with a family voting for a union. Me are worrying about the younger men that doesn't have any responsibility and can live at home with their folks and don't care too much about their jobs," and a state- ment of similar import made by Gordin to Laman. 4 Threatening its employees that the plant would be closed and their jobs lost if they voted for or assisted the Union by Seals' speech to the employees on Decem- ber 5, 1963, which has been heretofore excerpted.8 5. Coercively interrogating its employees concerning their union activities, sympa- thies, or desires by Brendel's interrogation of Gibbons, Vaughn, Laman, and Leggett, and by the interrogation of Leggett by Perry and Gordin.9 6. Promulgating and maintaining an unlawful no-solicitation rule 10 With respect to the allegations in the Union's objections, I also find and conclude that the Respondent engaged in the conduct therein alleged and thereby interfered with the results of the election. 7 In its brief, the Respondent contends that I should disbelieve Hughes' testimony that he was told by Forwith that Hughes would be discharged if he participated in a strike and failed to appear for work. in view of the testimony of Speer and Laman that they were told by Supervisors Forwith and Brendel, respectively, that they would be replaced rather than discharged if they struck While I agree with Respondent that a statement to employees that they could or would be replaced if they engaged in a strike may law- fully be uttered, and while I have found that this is what Speer and Laman were told, I am not persuaded that this detracts from the truthful character of Hughes' testimony. The statements were made in separate conversations at different times I find it neither inconceivable nor incredible that, while Speer and Laman were told one thing, Hughes was told another. B Respondent urges that Seals' speech was protected by Section 8(c) of the Act because "This is clearly not a threat that the employer is going to do anything, but simply a prophecy or expression of Seals' opinion that unionization of the Waste King will make it easier for their strong competitor to put them out of business." I am unable to agree. A reading of the pertinent portion of Seals' speech evidences to me a design to instill in the minds of the employees the fear that their selection of the Union would jeopardize their jobs, and constitutes an implied threat that the plant would be closed if the em- ployees cast their lot with the Union. This conclusion becomes fortified when the speech is viewed in the context of Respondent's threats to impose more onerous job performance standards on employees who were union adherents and to discharge employees who en- gaged in a lawful strike. See Remington Rand Corporation, 141 NLRB 1052, 1053. As there is no evidence to support the allegation in the complaint that Supervisor Brendel also threatened employees that the plant would be closed if they voted for or assisted the Union, I shall dismiss so much of the complaint as'it pertains thereto. 0In the light of the other unfair labor practices found herein, I find no merit in Re- spondent's contention that these acts of interrogation are too isolated to warrant finding a violation of Section 8(a) (1) or recommending a remedial order. See Blue Fla8h Ex- press, Inc., 109 NLRB 591 10 The Respondent apparently does not contest the invalidity of the no-solicitation rule as it was posted in the plant and as it appeared in the "Employees Handbook." 'However, it asserts that the rule lost its taint on December 5, 1963, when Respondent's counsel spoke to the assembled employees and informed them that they were free to engage in union activities on company time and property provided that such activities did not inter- fere with production and did not involve the use of threats or the engagement in any physical assaults If the Respondent had removed the posted rule from the plant, and had accordingly modified plant rule 19 in the "Employees Handbook" on that date, I would find merit in the Respondent's assertion and hold it harmless. However, Respond- ent conceded that it did not remove the illegal rule from the plant until April 28, 1964, long after the election was conducted. I am therefore not persuaded that the pronounce- ments of-Respondent's counsel effectively removed the illegal impediment to the right of its employees to self-organize contained in the posted rule. The General Counsel contends that the Respondent should be found to have enforced the illegal rule solely by virtue of its promulgation and maintenance. I find no support for this contention either in the cases which he has cited or as a result of independent re- search In any event, the proscription against the promulgation and maintenance of such a rule, as contained in the Recommended Order herein, would perforce preclude the en- forcement of such a rule 1468 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of 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 Having found that Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, I shall recom- mend that it cease and desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. I have also found that Respondent engaged in objectionable conduct which interfered with the election held on January 21, 1964. I shall therefore recommend that the election be set aside and another be conducted at such time as may be appropriate. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions, and upon the entire record in the cases, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing 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) of the Act. 4. By the aforesaid unfair labor practices committed prior to the Board election, Respondent has interfered with and illegally affected the results of the Board election held on January 21, 1964. 5. The aforesaid conduct constitutes conduct affecting commerce within the mean- ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, I recommend that Respondent, Cribben and Sexton Com- pany, d/b/a Waste King-Universal Products, Alamo, Tennessee, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Creating an impression of surveillance among the employees that their union activities are under surveillance. (b) Threatening employees that the job performance of union employees would be more strictly evaluated than nonunion employees. (c) Threatening employees with discharge or other reprisals if they supported or assisted the Union. (d) Threatening employees that the plant would close and their jobs would be lost if they voted for or assisted the Union. (e) Interrogating employees in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. (f) Promulgating and maintaining any unlawful rule concerning solicitation. (g) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its plant in Alamo, Tennessee, copies of the notice attached marked "Appendix." 11 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 26, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for a period of 60 consecutive days there- after, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to its employees are I "In the event that this Recommended Order be 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 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" BUDGET RANCH MARKET 1469 customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 26, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision , what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.12 It is further recommended that the election conducted in the appropriate unit of Respondent 's employees on January 21, 1964, be set aside and a new election directed at an appropriate time. It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges vio- lations of the Act not specifically found herein. 12 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing , within 10 days from th, date 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 Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended , you are notified that: WE WILL NOT create an impression among employees that their union activities are under surveillance ; threaten employees that the job performance of union employees will be more strictly evaluated than nonunion employees ; threaten employees with discharge or other reprisals if they support or assist the union; threaten employees that the plant will be closed and their jobs will be lost if they vote for or assist the union ; interrogate employees in a manner constituting interference , restraint , or coercion ; or promulgate and maintain any unlawful rule concerning solicitation. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with , restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. CRIBBEN AND SEXTON COMPANY, D/B/A WASTE KING-UNIVERSAL PRODUCTS, Employer. Dated- ------------------ By-------------------------------------------(Representative ) ( Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 746 Fed- eral Office Building, 167 North Main Street, Memphis, Tennessee , Telephone No. 534-3161, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Budget Ranch Market , Petitioner and Dalmar Ranch Market, Petitioner and Retail Clerks Union Local #1428, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 21-RM-1021 and 21-RN-1022. September 09, 1964 DECISION, DIRECTION OF ELECTION, AND ORDER Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Max Stein- feld. The Hearing Officer 's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch, and Members Leedom and Jenkins]. 148 NLRB No. 144.