Yale Rubber Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 14, 1971

193 N.L.R.B. 141 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

YALE RUBBER MFG. CO.
Yale Rubber Manufacturing Company and Interna-
tional Union , United Automobile , Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW). Case 7-CA-8459
September 14, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND KENNEDY
On July 28, 1971, Trial Examiner George Turitz
issued his Decision 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 Decision. Thereafter, the
General Counsel filed exceptions to the 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.
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 the entire
record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner, as modified below.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner as modified below and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Yale Rubber
Manufacturing Company, Sandusky, Michigan, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended
Order, as so modified:
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(b) of
the recommended Order:
(b) Announcing, granting, or committing itself to
wage increases or other employee benefits at times
chosen by Respondent for the purpose of dissuading
its employees from joining, aiding, or assisting the
UAW, or of dissuading them from designating the
UAW as their representative for the purposes of
collective bargaining, except that nothing contained
herein shall be construed as requiring the Respondent
to revoke any wage increases or other employee
141
benefits previously announced, committed, or grant-
ed.
2. Substitute the attached notice for the Trial
Examiner's notice.
I The General Counsel excepts to the Trial Examiner 's failure to
provide in Section l(b) of his recommended Order that nothing contained
therein should be construed as requiring the Respondent to revoke any
wage increases or other employee benefits previously announced,
committed , or granted We find ment in the exception and shall
appropriately modify the recommended Order and notice
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT threaten to close our plant or
terminate our operations if you decide to bargain
collectively, or if you designate the UAW for that
purpose, or if you engage in organizational
activities.
WE WILL NOT announce or grant wage increases
or other employee benefits at times chosen for the
purpose of dissuading you from joining, aiding, or
assisting the UAW, or from designating that
organization as your representative for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining, except that nothing
contained herein shall be construed as requiring us
to revoke any wage increases or other employee
benefits previously announced, committed, or
granted.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of your
right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist
the UAW or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of
your own choosing, or to engage in concerted
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from any or all such activities, except insofar as
these rights might be affected by a contract with a
labor organization, if validly made in conformity
with Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended.
YALE RUBBER
MANUFACTURING
COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
193 NLRB No. 24
142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions may be directed to the Board's
Office, 500 Book Building, 1249 Washington Boule-
vard, Detroit, Michigan 48226, Telephone
313-226-3200.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE TURITZ, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge filed by
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) ("the
UAW" and, at times "the Union") on February 5, 1971,
and served that day upon Yale Rubber Manufacturing
Company ("Respondent" and, at times, "the Company"),
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board ("the Board"), through the Regional Director for
Region 7, on March 19, 1971, issued a complaint and notice
of hearing which was duly served upon Respondent.
Respondent filed its answer in which it denied all
allegations of unfair labor practices. A hearing on the
Complaint was held before me at Sandusky, Michigan, on
May 4 and 5, 1971, at which the General Counsel and
Respondent were represented by their respective counsel.
Respondent has submitted a brief.
Upon the entire record and from my observation of the
witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, Yale Rubber Manufacturing Company, is a
Michigan corporation having an office and place of
business in the City of Sandusky, State of Michigan, where
it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of
molded and extruded rubber goods and related products.
In the course of its operations at the Sandusky plant
Respondent annually purchases and causes to be transport-
ed from points outside the State of Michigan directly to
said plant materials valued in excess of $50,000, and
annually sells and ships from said plant directly to its
customers located outside the State of Michigan products
valued in excess of $50,000. I find that Respondent is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended ("the Act").
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The complaint was based entirely upon Respondent's
issuance of a bulletin to the employees on the evening of
January 14, 1971. The issues litigated were: (a) whether
Respondent threatened in the bulletin that it would close its
plant and terminate its operations if the employees joined
or assisted the Union, or if a majority designated it as their
bargaining representative and (b) whether the wage
increase therein announced was violative of the Act
because it had been timed to dissuade the employees from
joining or assisting the Union and from designating it as
their bargaining representative. An important evidentiary
issue was whether Respondent had knowledge of the
Union's organizational effort at the time it issued the
bulletin.
A. Background
Respondent, with close to 500 employees, was the largest
employer in Sandusky, Michigan, population 2,400. Very
little other work was available in Sandusky. While
Respondent had some other business, its most important
business was making rubber parts for the automotive
industry, primarily General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler. Its
• principal stockholders were members of the Henderson
family. Many of Respondent's employees also engaged in
farming and many were related to each other and had been
in Respondent's employ for a long time ; the supervisors
were people who had been promoted from the ranks. At
one time the employees were represented by United
Rubber Workers, but they had not been organized since
1949, when the last contract with that labor organization
expired. In the interval, however, various labor organiza-
tions attempted, without success, to organize the employees
and there were one or more organizational campaigns each
year.
Respondent had a profit-sharing plan pursuant to which
the employees received, in addition to their weekly wages, a
check each month based on the number of straight-time
hours they had worked during the previous month. The
amount of the profit-sharing checks was announced in a
monthly bulletin which Respondent posted in the plant.
The profit-sharing bulletins were normally issued on or
after the 20th day of the month following the month
covered and occasionally additional bulletins were issued
and posted. i
Respondent used the bulletins as a kind of house
newspaper. It contained personal and community notes, as
well as announcements of holidays, job openings, wage
increases, fringe benefits, and social affairs. Each started
out with selected data, stated to the penny, on profit-
sharing, namely, gross sales, returns and allowances, net
sales, "profit to share," number of man hours allocable to
profit-sharing, number of hours per employee, cents per
hour "profit to share," and the amount of a profit-sharing
check for that month. The bulletins frequently included
exhortations to avoid carelessness, and to reduce absentee-
ism and waste of materials or work time.
i Of the 13 profit-sharing announcements predating the one in contained Christmas greetings and apparent references to a plant party on
controversy which are in evidence, 12 were issued between the 20th and Christmas Eve The August 16, 1967, bulletin did not contain a profit-
28th days of their respective months The 13th, dated December 18, 1969, sharing report
YALE RUBBER MFG. CO. 143
An important element in the bulletins was industrial and
economic news. The employees were informed of new
machinery installed or planned by Respondent, new
machinery installed by competitors, and of troubles
Respondent had getting adequate prices from General
Motors, Ford, and Chrysler Bulletins stated the dollar cost
of wage or fringe benefit increases announced, using the
occasion to warn the employees that the added costs had to
be made up by greater efficiency. Almost every bulletin in
evidence contained a reference to plant closings elsewhere
or an allusion to whether Respondent would continue in
business. The following language appeared in bulletins
predating the one in controversy:
December 20, 1967: . . . belief that the plant can
continue in business indefinitely ... .
May 22, 1968: . . . conditions that would not
encourage the Company to continue .. . .
August 16, 1968: If the plant stops making a profit it has
to close . . . you can be sure it will not stay operating
and provide jobs. The Company wants to stay in
business ... .
March 28, 1969: . as long as you and the
townspeople want the plant to continue operating in
Sandusky.
May 26, 1969: . . . our chance to stay in business here
July 24, 1969: South Haven Rubber . . . is announced
for sale.
October 27, 1969: "... some Michigan plants will not
survive." We intend to survive in Michigan and are
making plans accordingly . .. .
December 18, 1969: . . . our ability to pay and still
keepjobs for you . . . .
March 20, 1970: . . . deserve to stay in business ... .
If we fail to do any one of these we will be out of
business anyway . . .
April 24, 1970: . . . After 70 years .. Dryden
(once with 2,000 people making molded rubber in
Chicago) is closing ... .
May 21, 1970: Working together we will survive better
than a lot of factories.
June 26, 1970: . . . they will not keep the doors open
very long on this basis.
October 27, 1970: Klieston Rubber of New York,
Huron Rubber of Port Huron and Brown Rubber of
Indiana went out of business this past month.
Directors had approved. The May 22, 1968, bulletin
repeated the announcement for the 1968 and 1969 increases
and, on August 16, 1968, Respondent again announced the
1968 increase, which was to go into effect the following
week. The April 24, 1969, bulletin referred to "the wage
increase due 7-1-69"; and the October and December 1969
bulletins referred to the "annual" increase to go into effect
July 1, 1970, the amount of which was still to be
determined. On June 26, 1970, Respondent stated: "The
Board of Directors have authorized a 17d per hour wage
increase effective 7-5-70 and an increase in life insurance to
$7500.00 . . . . These increases were based upon our
promise to the Directors that we would make enough
improvements and cost savings to keep this package cost of
$24,000.00 per month from destroying the Company
C. The Leaflet Distribution on January 14
On January 14, 1971, Andrew Wilson, an international
representative of the UAW, accompanied by five other
union officials, appeared at Respondent's plant at about
2:40 p.m., when the first shift was leaving and the second
shift was coming in,2 and distributed UAW literature. The
plant property occupied a complete square block and had
entrances on three of the four streets it faced. Six
distributors covered all the entrances, and they gave out
several hundred leaflets. After close to an hour, having been
informed that no more first-shift employees were inside,
they left.
D. The January 14 Bulletin
At a time admittedly after the time when I have found
that the distributors had left Rizzardi, Respondent' s general
manager, asked his secretary to stay later than her usual
quitting time to type up the bulletin which is at issue in this
case. She worked on the bulletin, went out for supper, came
back and finished it, and after Rizzardi hurriedly checked it
and signed it, she posted it on the 15 plant bulletin boards.
According to Rizzardi the posting, which took about an
hour, was completed at about 8:15 or 8:30 p.m. Larry
Collins, at whose house the UAW officials made their first
personal contact with employees,3 testified that he saw a
female office employee, accompanied by Foreman Glo-
gowski, post a copy in his department at about 9:50 p.m.
Neither Glogowski nor Rizzardi's secretary testified. The
bulletin read as follows:
B. Respondent's Wage Practices
At least since 1967, Respondent has granted an across-
the-board wage increase each year. Beginning in 1969 the
effective date had been approximately the first payroll
period in July, which coincided with the time when, to the
preponderant extent, production commenced on the
following year's automobile model. When the 1967 increase
was placed into effect, Respondent announced that there
would be 10-cent-per-hour increases in 1968 and 1969
contingent, however, upon approval by the Board of
Directors; the December 1967 bulletin announced that the
2 The first shift ended and the second shift began at 3 p m
3 This meeting took place on about January 5, 1971 There is no
YALE RUBBER MANUFACTURING
COMPANY
Sandusky, Michigan 48471
January 14, 1971
TO ALL PERSONNEL, Sandusky, Michigan
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Sales in December were $1,132,921.00
Returns and allowances 28,771.00
evidence , or sufficient basis for an inference , that Respondent learned of
the meeting before the bulletin was posted
144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Net sales were $1 , 104,150.00
(The week after our December letter Bob Chard's
crew really cleaned house)
(Highest in 2 years)
Outside auditors will be late. We feel the inventory was
accurate and we will not wait Profit to share was
$4770.00 over 70,126 hours or 7 cents per hour x 176
hours or $12.32.
To answer recent questions , because of the unrest and
to help you plan your future , Russ Henderson has
permitted me to confirm and announce the annual wage
increase for July promised two years ago. At Christmas
time a possible Railroad and Chrysler strike, now
unlikely, prevented a commitment.
Effective this June 27th, 1971 there will be a 20 [cent] per
hour general hourly wage increase.
This plus payroll tax and vacation pay will average
$500.00 per person per year. It is in total more than the
total net profit from manufacturing ever made any one year
in the history of this plant. This is a matter of public record.
We feel we will make profits in the next three months.
After that we will have to try other means. For example,
we have been fighting for a small price increase at
Chevrolet for five months . At Ford our biggest volume
has had the same price for eight years. This is an example
of why a small supplier cannot pay large company wages.
Because we have become less competitive there are now
160 less employees here than at our peak Japan and
Europe are hurting us much as is Arkansas, New
Hampshire and North Carolina.
Last fall Russ directed us to do whatever possible to avoid
layoffs. We did. Frankly, he is now very worried. He has
granted this wage increase knowing it could wipe out
any return on investment here for a long time . If even
greater financial demands are made by any group there
wouldn 't be any escape from closing to avoid financial
failure. There must be a profit to stay in business.
For those who have not been with us long we point out
the fate of others. These are the reasons I am pessimistic
over our chances to survive in Michigan.
Chicago Rawhide-Still on 3 months strike.
Monarch Rubber-3 months strike 1970.
South Haven Rubber- 15 months strike.
Capac Rubber-Closed after long strike.
Baldwin Rubber-Closed.
Swan Rubber-5 months strike.
St. Clair Rubber-Ask the men who works
there.
B. F. Goodrich , Cadillac, Mich .-Closed.
Michigan Prec . Molded-Moved to N. Carolina.
Yale Seat Belt Co.-Closed.
Yale Wood Works-Closed.
Monroe Rubber , Hillsdale-Closed.
Dryden Rubber, Chicago-Closed.
Sanilac County and some Yale Rubber employees need
this job opportunity Some employees and the majority
stockholders do not necessarily need Yale Rubber.
Your help to Yale Rubber has been considerable over
the years . It is needed now for mutual benefit and
continued job opportunity.
Very truly yours
A. RIZZARDI
Rizzardi explained his hurry to get the bulletin out
Thursday night on the basis of circumstances surrounding
two items announced in the bulletin , namely , the wage
increase and the profit-sharing report . He testified as
follows: In early December 1970, the Board of Directors
had refrained from approving his recommended 20-cents-
per-hour increase pending clarification of a possible strike
at Chrysler; they had, however, authorized him and the
three Hendersons , all of whom were directors, to get
together and place the increase into effect once they were
satisfied that Chrysler would have no strike. On January 8,
he ascertained through his connections at Chrysler that
there would be no strike. On January 9, he reported this to
the Hendersons and they agreed that the increase could be
announced. Since he had been disappointed not to have
been able to announce the increase at Christmas time, he
was anxious to announce it in the January profit-sharing
bulletin . As to this, Rizzardi cited circumstances the effect
of which was that if the profit-sharing checks did not get
out on Thursday, January 14, it might not be possible to get
them out for several weeks , since the payroll department
personnel, when not working on payroll, would be busy
helping outside auditors with the year-end inventory.
Moreover , if the profit -sharing letter, with its announce-
ment of the wage increase, did not get out on Thursday, the
night shift, which did not work Friday night, would not
know about it until Sunday night, and would therefore feel
neglected. He started to draft the bulletin on Sunday,
January 10, and by Tuesday, January 12, had completed it
except for the final profit-sharing figure. This figure was
contingent upon inventory data, which he did not receive
until 4:30 p.m. on January 14. He and Russ Henderson
were then able to complete the profit-sharing report and
shortly after 5 o'clock he gave his handwritten draft of the
bulletin to his secretary.
E. When Respondent Learned of the Leafleting
Rizzardi testified that he did not learn of the organiza-
tional effort until Saturday, January 16, when he was told
about it by Halas, a scheduler. Halas testified that he
received the UAW leaflet when he left work on January 14.
According to him, at about 9 o'clock on Saturday morning
he remarked to Rizzardi, with reference to Respondent's
January 14 bulletin, "They really answered your letter in a
hurry," and Rizzardi asked, "Who?" He then testified, "I
told him that the United Auto Workers were out passing
out literature at the time and my neighbor was out there
passing it out with the other people." Halas stated that
Rizzardi seemed surprised and said , "That's news to me.
That's the first time that I know anything about it."
Rizzardi testified that he had gone to Halas' office that
morning "just to bandy words with him." He testified that
Halas said, "I see they answered your letter pretty fast,"
and that when he asked what Halas meant, the latter
replied : "Your raise . The union has a letter out there . . . .
There was a handbill last night at quitting time ." He stated,
further, that he thought that Halas had not mentioned the
YALE RUBBER MFG . CO. 145
name of the union. While testifying that he picked up one
of the leaflets from the floor on Saturday, glanced at it and
filed it, and had a copy of the charge filed by the UAW on
February 5, he insisted that the first time he realized that it
was "the U.A.W., AFL-CIO" that was involved was on
February 12, when he was interviewed by a Board agent.4
Rizzardi testified that he did not mention the leaflet to any
other member of management on January 16, explaining
that John, Russell, and David Henderson were not in the
office that day and that on Saturdays he was usually the
only member of top management in the office.
Shortly after issuance of Respondent's January 14
bulletin Collins had occasion to receive from Respondent a
check from its insurer covering the disability of Collins'
wife, Karen, who was also employed at the plant.5 Collins
and Rizzardi were in agreement as to some details of the
incident-that Rizzardi delivered the check, the substance
of their conversation about it, the time of the day, and that
Foreman Glogowski had sent Collins to the office.
However, Rizzardi testified that the incident occurred on
Monday, January 18, and that he told Glogowski to send
Collins to David Henderson; he said that he took over only
because the latter had left the plant by the time Collins
appeared. Collins testified that Rizzardi gave him the check
on the day following its date, namely, on January 15, and
that Glogowski told him that it was Rizzardi who wished to
speak to him.
The two men also had different recollections of the
substance of the part of their conversation that did not
concern the check. According to Collins, Rizzardi, after
instructing him about the check, said that the wage increase
granted was "as far as they could go"; and he also testified:
He stated that they could not meet union demands and
that he would appreciate my cooperation and I really
can't remember exactly what was after that, but we
changed the subject back to my wife's insurance thing.
Collins further testified as follows:
Q Do you recall as to whether Mr. Rizzardi made
any statement as to what would happen if the union got
in?
A. Just that they could not meet the union demands
and that if I didn't like myjob, I don't believe . . . . He
did say that if I didn't like myjob that I could leave.
Collins denied that anything was said about the General
Motors settlement, he testified that it was Rizzardi who
brought up the subject of the Union. Rizzardi, after
describing the conversation about the check, stated, ". . .
and that was the end of my responsibility on that matter."
He further testified:
Actually it isn't too clear, but I mentioned-well, we
talked about the raise in some way . . . . I said-I think
I said that, "this is going to cost us a lot of money It's a
good thing we don't have a General Motors UAW
contract because it would wreck us. We just can't pay
that kind of money. It's a helluva settlement." There
were words to the effect . . . . I don't remember that he
4 R¢zardi 's affidavit given to the Board agent that day contained a
statement to that effect
s In some instances the transcript refers to her as Carol
6 On February 9, D R Henderson had signed a return receipt for
service of the charge
7 The entry meant that he was to ascertain whether she had returned to
[Collins] said anything specifically pertaining to my
conversation really. I said, "We're going to need all the
help that we can get from guys like you, Larry, to try to
get their money back."
Rizzardi also testified that the General Motors agreement
had been reached the previous November.
Rizzardi's claim that he did not learn until February 12
that the UAW was involved in the organizing was
contradicted by his admission that he had previously
glanced at and filed its leaflet, which carried the letters
"UAW" in heavy 3/16-inch type, his admission that he
knew previously that a charge had been filed,6 and by
Halas' testimony that in January Rizzardi had asked who
had been leafleting and Halas told him the UAW.
Respondent prided itself on its relatively high degree of
sophistication in the labor relations area and Rizzardi
admitted that Respondent was opposed to having a union
in the plant. I do not credit Rizzardi's testimony that prior
to his interview by the Board agent he paid no attention to,
and did not know, what organization had distributed the
leaflet and filed the charge.
Since the uncontradicted evidence shows, and Halas
himself recalled, that the distribution took place on
Thursday, Rizzardi's testimony that Halas told him that the
distribution had taken place "last night at quitting time"
contradicted the professed recollection of both men that
their conversation had taken place on Saturday. Moreover,
Halas made no attempt to explain how the Union's leaflet
which he received on Thursday could have impressed him
as a quick answer to a Company bulletin which he did not
see until Friday. I do not credit Halas and Rizzardi's
testimony that the latter was surprised when Halas told him
about the leafleting.
David Henderson, the official in charge of handling
insurance checks, corroborated Rizzardi as to the time the
insurance check was delivered to Collins. However, his
testimony was clouded by inconsistencies with Rizzardi's
testimony or within itself. He first said that he did not open
the envelope with the check until Monday, but quickly
revised this to say that he did it on Saturday. He made a
calendar entry for Saturday, January 16, reading, "Karen
Collins RTW?" 7 which would seem on its face to be a
reminder for January 16 made prior to that date, rather
than a reminder entered on January 16 to do something on
some subsequent date, as testified by Henderson.8 As to his
January 18 entry, "Dentist 3 PM," Henderson said at one
time that he made it "definitely" on January 18, and at
another that he was sure it was made before. Moreover,
since he testified that it was only on that day that he
persuaded his wife to let him take her 3 o'clock
appointment, and since he had a toothache as a reminder, it
is difficult to see what need there was for the calendar
notation in any event. Finally, David Henderson impro-
vised a 3-week vacation for his father as his initial
explanation, soon withdrawn, for his alleged presence in the
plant that Saturday-which Rizzardi, incidentally, in
work, in which event an appropriate form would be sent to the insurance
company.
" Henderson canceled each date on his calendar with a uniform scrawl
January 16 bore the uniform scrawl in green plus a large black "X" which,
so far as appears from the record , was unique
146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
another connection denied. I found David Henderson
unconvincing and have not credited his testimony.
I have appraised Collins' testimony in the light of the fact
that he was the most important figure among the employees
in bringing the UAW to the plant and therefore an
interested witness. His testimony as to the date he received
the check was forthright and convincing, and I find that the
incident occurred on Friday, January 15.9 I have also
credited his version of the conversation over Rizzardi's.
The timing of the bulletin a few hours after the leaflet
distribution is striking It is especially striking in view of the
fact that the bulletins normally were issued on or after the
20th day of the month. Moreover, Rizzardi had to keep his
secretary at work overtime in order to issue the bulletin that
day. There is no possible basis for inferring that the
leafleters chose January 14 for their work because they
knew that the bulletin was to appear. On the other hand, as
six strange union officials distributed the leaflets for almost
an hour at the plant gates, covenng all entrances on three
different streets, there was much opportunity for the
various members of management to see what was going on.
In addition, the record establishes that many employees
were not averse to discussing unionization with manage-
ment; it seems probable that some employees on the second
shift would have mentioned the distribution to their
superiors Rizzardi's discredited testimony that he first
learned of the leafleting and of the UAW's participation on
January 16 and February 12, respectively, his discredited
denial that on January 15 he had Collins brought to him to
hear the Company's view on the Union and to solicit his
cooperation, and David Henderson's discredited attempt at
corroboration show a reluctance on Respondent's part to
disclose the actual time and circumstances when Rizzardi
learned of the union activity. On the basis of all the facts set
forth in this paragraph, I have inferred that Rizzardi knew
about the leaflet distribution when he made his decision to
issue the bulletin on January 14. I find that Respondent did
not issue the bulletin in the regular course and would not
have issued it at that time but for the Union's organization-
al campaign. I further find that Respondent issued the
bulletin for the specific purpose of dissuading the
employees from responding favorably to the Union's
organizational campaign
F. Concluding Findings
1. The threat to close the plant
Respondent's policy was to condition its employees by
constantly holding before them the specter of its going out
of business, whether because of competition, inadequate
prices, inefficiency, waste, strikes, or other adverse
circumstances. Of the 14 bulletins in evidence issued before
January 14, at least 12 contained reference to plant closings
or to the question of whether Respondent would continue
to operate the Sandusky plant. The criterion it usually
mentioned for its continuing in business was not ability to
meet costs, but profit or return on investment. Employers
9 At one point during cross-examination Collins testified that he
received the check on its date, at another point he said that his
conversation with Rizzardi was the (lay after he received the check Left to
himself to recount what had happened, he testified that he did not
are, of course, in business for profit. However, profit and
return on investment are relative terms, and by emphasiz-
ing that factor Respondent emphasized that the possible
discontinuance of business it was warning the employees
about would be of its own choice. As Respondent had close
to 500 employees, and the population of Sandusky was only
2,400, and as little other work was available, the employees
were especially sensitive to such conditioning. The Supreme
Court said, in The Sinclair Company v. N. L. R. B. (N.L.R.B.
v. Gissel Packing Co.), 395 U.S. 575, 617:
And any balancing of those rights must take into
account the economic dependence of the employees on
their employers, and the necessary tendency of the
former, because of that relationship, to pick up intended
implications of the latter that might be more readily
dismissed by a more disinterested ear.
While the warnings of plant closing in most bulletins were
indirect and only occasionally tied to strikes, when Rizzardi
was confronted with the task of opposing a UAW drive, he
held back little. The bulletin he rushed to issue on January
14 contained a stronger than usual dose of references to
plant closings and Respondent's continuing in business. In
order to point out to newer employees "the fate of others,"
it listed a dozen firms that were engaged in long strikes or
had been closed, adding, "Those are the reasons I am
pessimistic over our chances to survive in Michigan." The
bulletin stated: "He has granted this wage increase
knowing it could wipe out any return on investment here
for a long time. If even greater financial demands are made
by any group there wouldn't be any escape from closing to
avoid financial failure. There must be a profit to stay in
business." Rizzardi explained his use of the term "financial
demands" as follows:
Financial demands to me are many of the company's
taxes, quality control, depreciation, demand for expan-
sion of capital-demands for new equipment;"
and he stated that it differed from a "union demand." I do
not credit this testimony. I find that the reference to
"financial demands . . . made by any group" would
reasonably be read by the employees, and was intended by
Rizzardi, to mean wage and fringe-benefit demands which
might be made by the UAW and the employees supporting
that organization. In this manner Rizzardi explicitly tied
the threatened plant closing to the possibility that the
employees might choose to bargain collectively and to their
selection of the UAW as their representative for that
purpose. Finally, to bnng home to the employees that the
shutting off of "any escape from closing" was a matter of
Respondent's choice, the bulletin stated: "Some employees
and the majonty stockholders do not necessanly need Yale
Rubber."
I find that Respondent threatened to close its plant and
terminate its operation if the employees decided to bargain
collectively, or designated the UAW as their representative
for such purpose, or if they continued their organizational
efforts. I further find that Respondent thereby violated
Section 8(a)(I) of the Act.
remember the date as such, but only that it was the day after the date on
the check He further testified that there was only one meeting with
Rizzardi
YALE RUBBER MFG. CO.
2 The wage increase
Respondent's claim that it had a policy of granting wage
increases annually is true, but only in a limited sense. While
there had been one increase each year since 1967, the first
two in September and the latter two in July, and in some
instances Respondent referred to them in the bulletins as
"annual" wage increases, there was no policy or practice as
to the amount of increase. The first three increases were 10
cents each. As to the fourth, one was promised in the
December 1969 bulletin but the amount was reserved for
future decision. The 17 cents decided on was not
announced until issuance of the June 26, 1970, bulletin,
which also stated: "These increases were based upon our
promise to the Directors that we would make enough
improvements and cost ravings to keep this package cost of
$24,000.00 per month from destroying the Company . .
The January 14, 1971, bulletin made the contingent nature
of the wage-increase policy especially clear , stating: "Russ
Henderson has permitted me to confirm and announce the
annual wage increase for July promised two years ago. At
Christmas time a possible Railroad and Chrysler strike,
now unlikely, prevented a commitment." At least as to the
amount of increase and as to definitive commitment,
Respondent's claim that it had a policy of announcing wage
increases around the end of the year to be effective the
following July is not borne out by credible evidence. The
evidence shows, rather, that the important question of the
amount of increase was reserved for future determination
and that before such determination there was no commit-
ment by Respondent With the employees thus warned that
the amount, if not even the fact, of future wage increases
would depend on Respondent's future decision, Respon-
dent met the UAW's organizational drive with a stick and
carrot. It chose that day, well in advance of the effective
date and well in advance of the season when it had
announced the amount of the 1970 increase, to commit
itself to a 20-cent increase and at the same time threatened
to close the plant if the employees sought to bargain
collectively. I find that Respondent did not select that time
to commit itself to a wage increase and to announce its
amount for business reasons or in accordance with its
normal practice but did so for the specific purpose of
dissuading the employees from seeking the benefits of
collective bargaining. I further find that by granting and by
announcing the increase in the January 14 bulletin
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. See
Goldblatt Bros, Inc., 174 NLRB No 114.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
I find that the activities of Respondent set forth above in
section III, occurring in connection with its operations
described in section I, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
is In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 10246 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings , conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
V. THE REMEDY
147
In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, I find that it
is necessary that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist
from the unfair labor practices found and from like or
related invasions of the employees' Section 7 rights and to
take certain affirmative action.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and on
the entire record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent, Yale Rubber Manufacturing Company,
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent is, and at all times material has been, an
employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
3. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. The unfair labor practices described above are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 10
ORDER
Respondent, Yale Rubber Manufacturing Company, its
officers , agents, successors , and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening its employees that it would close its plant
or terminate its operations if the employees decided to
bargain collectively, or if they designated the UAW for
such purpose, or if they continued their organizational
efforts, or if they engaged in other concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection.
(b) Announcing, granting, or committing itself to wage
increases or other employee benefits at times chosen by
Respondent for the purpose of dissuading its employees
from joining, aiding, or assisting the UAW, or of dissuading
them from designating the UAW as their representative for
the purposes of collective bargaining.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed under Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its office and place of business in Sandusky,
Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, automatically become the
findings, conclusions , decision , and order of the Board , and all objections
thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes
148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Michigan, copies of the notice attached hereto marked
"Appendix." i i Copies of the notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 7 shall, after being signed
by a representative of Respondent, be posted immediately
upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(b) Notify said Regional Director for Region 7, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.i2
11 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the 12 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
United States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read.
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Notify said Regional Director for Region 7, in writing, within 20 days
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " herewith "