Gilliam Candy Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 22, 1978

239 N.L.R.B. 991 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

GILLIAM CANDY CO., INC.
Gilliam Candy Co., Inc. and Bakery and Confection-
ery Workers' International Union of America, Local
No. 199, AFL-CIO. Cases 9-CA-11605 and 9-
RC- 12602
December 22. 1979
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND PENELLO
On August 17, 1978, Administrative Law Judge
Bruce C. Nasdor issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,2 and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Gilliam Candy Co., Inc.,
Paducah, Kentucky, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said
recommended Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held
among Respondent's employees on July 19, 1977, be,
and it hereby is, set aside and that Case 9-RC-12602
be, and it hereby is, remanded to the Regional Direc-
The General Counsel has filed a motion to sever Case 9-RC-12062 and
to remand it to the Regional Director for appropriate acuon on Petitioner's
request to withdraw objections. We have been administratively advised that
Respondent does not concur with the motion to sever. In addition, we note
that Respondent has filed exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge's
recommendation that Objections 3 and 4 be sustained and that the election
held on July 19, 1977, in Case 9-RC-12062 be set aside and a second elec-
tion be held. In these circumstances, we hereby deny the General Counsel's
motion to sever.
2 Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to over-
rule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility
unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us
that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91
NLRB 544 (19Vf), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
tor for purposes of holding a second election pur-
suant to the following.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omit-
ted from publication.]
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BRUCE C NASDOR. Administrative Law Judge: This case
was heard at Paducah, Kentucky, on February 1, 1978.
The charge in this case was filed by the Bakery and Con-
fectionery Workers International Union of America, Local
No. 199, AFL-CIO (herein called the Union), on July 28,
1977.' The complaint and notice of hearing issued on Octo-
ber 4, alleging:
(a) That Respondent threatened employees with more
stringent enforcement of company rules if the employees
selected the Union as their bargaining representative.
(b) That Respondent promised employees increased em-
ployment opportunities during the Christmas season, con-
ditioned upon their rejection of the Union as their collec-
tive-bargaining representative.
(c) That Respondent made veiled threats to its employ-
ees that it would close its business if they selected the
Union as their collective-bargaining representative.
(d) That Respondent, by its president, Bruce Pope, ad-
monished an employee concerning said employee's refusal
to sign a statement regarding statements purportedly made
by Respondent during the Union's organizational cam-
paign.
The petition in Case 9-RC-12062 was filed on May 16,
1977. A Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Elec-
tion, was approved by the Regional Director for Region 9,
on July 7, and a secret-ballot election was conducted on
July 19. Of approximately 26 eligible voters, 26 cast ballots,
of which 13 were cast for the Union (petitioner), and 13
votes were cast against the Union. On July 26, the Union
filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of
the election and the Regional Director conducted an inves-
tigation of the issues raised by those objections. Objections
3 and 4 parallel unfair labor practices 5(a) and 5(c) alleged
in the complaint. On September 29, the Union withdrew
Objections 1, 2, and 5. On October II, the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 9, consolidated the objections with the in-
stant unfair labor practice case for hearing.
Upon the entire record in this case, from my observation
of the witnesses and their demeanor and after due consid-
eration of briefs, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACr
1. JURIsDICTION
Respondent is a Kentucky corporation with a plant lo-
cated at Paducah, Kentucky, where it is engaged in the
manufacture of candy. During the past 12 months, a repre-
sentative period, Respondent, in the course and conduct of
its business operations, sold and shipped goods valued in
IAll dates herein are in 1977, unless otherwise indicated.
991
DECISIONS OF NA FIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
excess of $50,000 from its Paducah, Kentucky, facility di-
rectly to points located outside the Commonwealth of
Kentucky.
Respondent is an employler engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION
Lawrence Simmons, the Union's business representative
of 4 years, testified that his organization was nonprofit a.nd
existed for the purposes of employees organizing to bargain
collectively with their employers for wages, working condi-
tions and settling grievances. Simmons testified that his
union represents employees in a four-state area, and the
Union has collective-bargaining agreements with em-
ployers covering wages and working conditions of employ-
ees. He testified further that the employees who are repre-
sented by the Union participate in the administration and
the running of the Union. He also testified that the em-
ployees of the various employers where the Union is the
collective-bargaining representative, participate in the op-
eration of the Union by serving as local officers and bar-
gaining with the employers over wages, working condi-
tions, and the right to settle grievances.
Based on the foregoing unrebutted testimony, I find that
the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
111. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND THE OBJECTIONS
TO THE ELECTION
Carolyn Sue Crittendon, a machine operator no longer
in the employ of Respondent, testified that she and the
entire employee complement attended three meetings
where the president of Respondent, Bruce Pope, addressed
the gathering. At the first meeting, on June 9, according to
her testimony, Pope told the employees that the NLRB
may get him for saying it but he was going to say it any-
way, that he had seen things go on in the plant and had the
Union been in, he would have fired them (employees) on
the spot. Pope further stated that he was operating on bor-
rowed money and he was afraid that if the banks found out
that the Union had come in they would not loan him any
more money and he could no longer operate. Furthermore,
Pope talked about building up stock and that he was in
hopes that he would not have to lay employees off at
Christmas time. Additionally, Pope allegedly talked about
various other businesses in the Paducah area for example;
Tappan Company, CTS, B & B Foods, Sippi, and a shirt
factory, and stated that these companies had gone out of
business because of what the Union had done for them,
and that strikes has caused at least one closure.
Crittendon testified that the second meeting was approx-
imately 2 weeks later. Pope, according to her testimony,
spoke again about the banks and that they may not loan
any money if the Union came in and he could not operate
without money. He again spoke of the same four compa-
nies in the Paducah area who went out of business because
of what "the union had done for them." He also reiterated
that things were looking good and he was hopeful that he
would not have to lay off at Christmas.
The third and last meeting occurred the day before the
election. According to Crittendon at this meeting Pope
again stated he was afraid that if the Union came in the
banks would not loan him anymore money and without the
money he could not operate. He again spoke of CTS, B &
B Foods, Sippi, and the shirt factory saying that they had
gone out of business because of the Union. Furthermore,
he spoke of things looking good and the hopes that he
would not have to lay off at Christmas again.
Billie King, a candy maker at the Company, testified
that at the last meeting the day before the election, Pope
stated that if the Union came in the bank probably would
not loan him any more money. Iln addition, King testified
on direct examination that Pope told a group of employees
that B & B and CTS went out of business because the
employees had struck over wages. Pope allegedly also stat-
ed that if the Union came in a lot of things would be
changed, for example smoking in the back of the plant
while leaning over the candy. He also said if the Union
came in the employees would be fired if they came in late.
On cross-examination he changed his testimony somewhat
and related that Pope told employees there would be
changes but he did not say they would be fired if the Union
came into the plant.
Houston Henderson, a candy maker, has been employed
by the Respondent for 9 years. He testified that in the past
at Christmas time some of the work force had been laid off.
He attended a meeting at the plant the day before the
election and testified that Pope told the employees that if
the Union came in the banks would not let him have any
more money. Furthermore, that CTS, Sippi, B & B Foods,
and Tappan went out of business because the Unions put
them out of business. He then tes:ified in a composite fash-
ion with respect to the first two meetings. His testimony is
that the banks would not let Mr. Pope have any more
money if the Union came in (according to Pope's state-
ment to the employees), and if the Union came in there
would be some changes and the employees would be fired
right on the spot. The changes, according to his testimony,
related to smoking over the machines and Pope stated that
if the Union came in that would have to stop. Henderson
testified that nearly every Christmas some employees have
been laid off.
Michael Kauffman, was employed as a candy maker-
helper for Respondent until August 1977. He testified that
he attended all three meetings at which Pope spoke to the
employees. Kauffman testified that at the first meeting in
June Pope stated he may get in trouble with the NLRB for
this statement but he was going to say it anyway. Pope
allegedly told the employees that he had seen things going
on in the plant and if the Union had been there the people
would have been fired on the spot. Furthermore, according
to his testimony Pope talked about other places that had
closed down such as CTS, B & B Foods, a shirt factory,
Sippi, and the Tappan plant. Pope stated, look what the
Unions have done for these plants. Pope also stated that he
was trying to work out something so that there would be no
layoffs and so the employees would not have as much over-
time as they had been having during the Christmas rush.
He was going to try to build up stock instead of laying off.
Pope said that he operated on borrowed money and he felt
992
GILLIAM CANDY CO., INC.
that if the Union came in the b.. ks would look hard and
he would not be able to operate vithout the money that
they loaned to him. The second n, -ting occurred, accord-
ing to Kauffman, approximately: weeks later. Kauffman
testified that in the main Pope reiterated what he had stat-
ed at the first meeting with thf, exception of the statement
about the NLRB. He still stressed the fact that the banks,
according to his feelings, would not let him borrow money
as freely if the Union came in. He would not be able to
operate without this money. He repeated that cer'ain
plants had been closed and named the same plants. Pope
allegedly repeated that he thought he had worked out
something so there would not be layoffs and he was going
to build up stock so that there would not be as much over-
time. Kauffman remembered that the third meeting was on
the day before the election and that Pope stated he was
going to recap what had been gone over during the course
of the first two meetings. He talked about the plants that
had gone out of business and that he, Pope, could not see
how unions could have possibly done them any good. Ac-
cording to the testimony of Kauffman, Pope stressed the
fact that he still did not feel that the banks would loan him
money as freely and without this money he could not oper-
ate. Kauffman, during the course of his testimony, repeat-
ed that Pope stated that he was building up stock to avoid
laying off during Christmas.
Kauffman then proceeded to testify with respect to an
interview on or about August I 11, with Jon Goldman, the
attorney representing the Respondent herein. According to
Kauffman, he met with Goldman behind closed doors in
an office. Goldman told Kauffman he did not have to an-
swer any questions nor did he, Kauffman, have to stay if
he did not want to. According to Kauffman, Goldman told
him he was going to take down his statements and have
Kauffman sign them if he so desired. Furthermore, Gold-
man assured Kauffman that anything Kauffman said
would be confidential and Mr. Pope would not be made
privy to any statements. Thereafter, Goldman proceeded
to ask Kauffman questions relating to the addresses Pope
made to the employees during the meetings heretofore re-
ferred to. Goldman wrote while Kauffman answered his
questions. Then Goldman presented the statement to
Kauffman for his signature, Kauffman refused to sign the
statement, and Goldman told him he did not have to sign
the statement.
Kauffman returned to work and a little while later he
was approached by Pope who asked him why he did not
sign the document. Kauffman told Pope he did not want to
get involved. According to Kauffman's testimony. Pope
walked away and immediately returned stating that Kauff-
man had no excuse not to sign the document and he, Pope,
could not understand why he would not sign it. Kauffman
told Pope that he would rather not get involved. On cross-
examination, Kauffman testified in response to a question
by Respondent's counsel that he, Kauffman, told him dur-
ing the course of their meeting that he would like to talk to
his father before he signed the statement.
On rebuttal, Kauffman testified that he had taken notes
of the meetings Pope had with the employees although the
notes were not available at the hearing. Kauffman repeated
on rebuttal that Pope stated he might get in trouble with
the NLRB for saying it, but he was going to say it anyway.
He had seen things go on in the plant and if the Union had
been there the people would have been fired on the spot for
these actions.
Jeanette Friar worked as a packer in the plant until De-
cember 1977 when she quit. She also testified that she at-
tended all three meetings. According to her testimony, at
the first meeting, Pope stated that if the Union got in he
could not borrow any money from the bank to operate the
factory. Furthermore, he was going to try to fix it so that
the employees would not be laid off at Christmas time. He
mentioned by name, CTS, Sippi, Tappan Gas, B & B
Foods, and a shirt factory, stating that it was because of
the Union that they were out of business. Furthermore,
according to her testimony, Pope said he had seen some
things going on and had the Union been in the employees
would have been fired on the spot. At the second meeting
2 weeks later, according to her testimony Pope stated if the
Union came in he could not borrow any money from the
bank to operate. According to Friar, Pope repeated the
names of the companies who had gone out of business
because of the Union. Furthermore, Pope stated he was
trying to "fix it" so the employees would have enough
stock that they would not be laid off at Christmas time.
According to her recollection the third and last meeting
was held on the day of the election.2 Friar testified that at
the last meeting, Pope again talked about the banks, i.e., if
the Union got in he could not borrow any more money to
operate the factory. He repeated he was trying to build up
enough stock so that the employees would not be on layoff
at Christmas. On cross-examination, Friar testified that
Pope stated if the Union came in he would not be able to
borrow any money to operate the factory.
John Brooke was called as a witness by and on behalf of
the Resondent, and testified that he has been employed as
a candy maker by the Respondent since 1941. Brooke testi-
fied that Pope made the statements that the banks might
not want to loan him money if the Union came in. He
testified that he did not hear Mr. Pope say that the banks
would not loan him money. He did not remember hearing
Pope state he would fire anybody nor did he remember
Pope talking about the various employers referred to earli-
er. Brooke testified that he attended two of the meetings
but that had been so long ago, he could not remember
everything Pope had said, in his words, "no way." Nor did
he remember Pope making any references to stockpiling or
Christmas layoffs or building up inventory. Brooke testi-
fied that the employees are not supposed to smoke over the
machines when making candy but that they do not observe
this rule except when supervisors are present.
John Wesley Miller testified on behalf of the Respon-
dent that he has been working for Respondent as a candy
maker since 1929. He remembered attending two or three
meetings. He was interrogated on direct examination about
the meetings collectively, rather than on an individual ba-
sis. He testified that Pope stated if the Union came in he
did not know how the banks would feel about loaning him
money. He testified that 2 or 3 years ago there were layoffs
2 I conclude that her recollection was faulty in this respect
993
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
during the Christmas period but that layoffs do not pres-
ently occur. He did not remember Pope making any com-
ments about layoffs during the Christmas period. He testi-
fied that in violation of the Company's rule employees
smoked over the machines while making candy, although
they do not smoke when a supervisor is in the area. At the
conclusion of his testimony, he was asked how much of the
meetings he really remembered. His answer was "well, to
tell you the truth it's been so long I can't remember too
much about them."
Bruce Pope testified that he was president of Respon-
dent and had acted in that capacity since April 1973. He
testified that 70 percent of Respondent's sales occur during
the 3 months preceeding the Christmas holiday. Pope testi-
fied that the meetings lasted from 5 to 10 minutes. He
usually opened up the meeting by saying that he was
against unionization at this time. He felt that the Company
was very, very small and extremely cyclical. He stated he
told the employees that the Company borrows large quan-
tities of money each year to build inventory and he empha-
sized that he was not sure how the banks would react. He
told the employees he was concerned that if the Company
became unionized the banks might not have the same poli-
cies that they had in the past in furnishing the Respondent
money, that they had been very good up until now in al-
lowing Respondent to have substantial amounts of money
for inventory build up. He stated that he told the employ-
ees he might get criticism from the NLRB for making this
statement but he was going to make it anyway, that if the
Union comes in (and he had seen union plants before) they
would have a contract. "In this contract there would be a
number of rules for the first time. Or if even not for the
first time, there would be specific rules written down. Some
of the actions of some of the employees that are consis-
tently breaking verbal rules we might have to instill a state-
ment that would say that if these rules are broken it would
result in a person being fired." And every labor contract he
had ever read has the rules in it. Pope stated he wanted to
make clear to the employees that there would be stricter
rules written down in the contract. He stated that breaking
these rules could result in people being terminated. If spe-
cific rules were written down where if you break candy
maliciously, something he had seen before (employees
doing this under stress) they could be terminated. He told
the employees that whether or not they had a union they
would be a healthy company and they would work togeth-
er. Pope testified that last year fewer people were laid off,
because he borrowed larger quantities of money and built
the largest inventory he had ever built. At some places in
his testimony, Pope tended to ramble and was apparently
testifying as to his mental processes rather than what he
actually told the employees. He did state specifically that
he said to the employees that the Company was going to
continue to try to build inventory, however, it takes bor-
rowed money to do that. Pope testified further that he nev-
er told the employees that a union put anyone out of busi-
ness, rather, "I said there were problems, labor
management problems in each one of these operations and
it created difficulty and some are no longer here."
Pope testified that he talked to Lawrence Simmons, the
Union's business representative, on the day of the election.
This occurred during the balloting in Pope's office and no
one else was present. Pope testified that he expressed his
concern to Simmons about the various labor strikes in the
area, which was well known in his opinion. He says he
discussed the various labor management problems occur-
ring at the various plants in the area and the fact that he,
Pope, was extremely concerned about a labor organization
coming into his plant. According to Pope, he made it very
clear to Simmons that if the Union came in they would still
work together to have a good healthy company.
Lawrence Simmons who has been the Union's business
representative for approximately 4 years, was called by the
General Counsel as his first witness. He testified that he
engaged in a conversation with Pope, in Pope's office dur-
ing the balloting from 8 to 9 a.m. Simmons testified that at
the outset Pope told him about new accounts he had re-
cently gotten, and that the business looked brighter than it
had in some time. Pope allegedly stated further that he did
not think he was going to have to lay off as many employ-
ees this Christmas as he normally did. He questioned Sim-
mons about the union cards and wanted to know how
many signatures he had obtained. Simmons responded he
could not tell him that but he had a substantial number,
more than half of the employees. Pope stated that at this
time he did not think Gilliam Candy Company was ready
for a union. Pope asked Simmons why he did not come to
the Company and talk to him about a union rather than
filing cards for an election. Then according to Simmons,
Pope related the comments he had made during his meet-
ings with the employees. Pope told Simmons he told the
employees he may be in trouble with the National Labor
Relations Board if they found out some of the things he
had actually said in the meeting to the employees. He
made reference, according to Simmons, to rules that were
being broken in the plant, for example employees standing
over machines with cigarettes hanging out of their mouths.
He stated that if the employees voted for a union, when
they were caught in violation of these rules they would be
fired on the spot. Pope related to Simmons that he had
talked to the employees about money to operate the plant
(on borrowed money) from a local bank, he was operating
from I year, or one Christmas time to the next, on bor-
rowed money. At this point in the testimony apparently,
according to the testimony of Simmons, Pope is telling him
that bank people did not understand unions, and that the
Union would be coming in asking for money and pension
plans and it would cost him more to operate and he did not
feel that the bank would let him have any money once they
found out that the Union had come into the plant. Without
money he could not operate the plant thereby forcing him
to close it. He then mentioned a strike and union trouble in
the Paducah area and made reference to, according to Sim-
mons, at least four companies who were on long strikes or
going out of business because of unions. Simmons remem-
bered Pope referring to CTS, Sippi, Tappan, and B & B
Foods.
Analysis and Conclusions
Although a sequestration rule was in effect, General
Counsel's witnesses' versions of Pope's discourses to em-
ployees rang remarkably close and I credit them. The fact
994
GILLIAM CANDY CO., INC.
that their versions were not identical and were at variance
as to certain details bolsters my impression that they were
making an effort to accurately recall Pope's speeches.
Brooke and Miller appeared to be concentrating their
efforts in avoiding attributing the magic words 3 to Pope,
rather than in trying to recollect precisely what was said by
him. Both witnesses did admit however that they could not
remember much in the way of specifics. I do not rely on
their testimony as reflecting an accurate account of Pope's
addresses.
Regarding the testimony of Pope, suffice it to say I find
it totally unreliable and agree with a comment in General
Counsel's brief, "however, as Pope's testimony progressed,
it became increasingly more difficult to determine what. if
anything, he said was a purported restatement of his mes-
sage to employees or a statement of his personal belief and
attitudes as they existed on the date of the hearing." I
would only add that Pope's testimony regarding his con-
versation with Business Agent Simmons leaves me with the
same impression, I therefore discredit Pope's version of the
meetings.
The testimony of Simmons, whom I credit, also lends
credence to the testimony of the General Counsel's wit-
nesses.
I find that Pope's comments to the employees at the
three meetings went beyond the bounds of legitimate pro-
paganda. Moreover, the Respondent's repeated references
to unions causing other plants in the area to close would
cause its employees to reasonably infer that their employ-
ment would be jeopardized if they supported the Union.
See, N.L.RB. v. Gissel Packing Co., Inc., 395 U.S. 575
(1969), and Mohawk Bedding Co., Inc., 216 NLRB 126
(1975). Respondent failed to base its inferences on any in-
formation or data to provide a factual basis for proving
that its plant would be forced to close, or that the bank
would not make money available, thus forcing the closure.
Accordingly, Respondent's statements had the effect of
threatening employees with economic reprisals if they vot-
ed for the Union, which constitutes a violation of Section
8(aXl) of the Act, and such conduct also affected the re-
sults of the election.
Respondent's conduct in reiterating the theme that if a
union came into the plant, employees would be subjected
to harsher penalties for infractions of company rules, vio-
lates Section 8(aXl1) of the Act and is a further basis for
setting the election aside.
Furthermore, by promising increased employment op-
portunities at Christmas if employees rejected the Union,
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.4
I find further that by questioning Kauffman concerning
Kauffman's refusal to sign the statement, Respondent ren-
dered meaningless Goldman's assurances that participa-
tion in the interview and signing the statement was entirely
voluntary. I therefore conclude that Pope's conduct in this
regard was coercive within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l)
of the Act.
3 "Could clo , would close or might close."
4 The objections do not allege this as a basis for setting aside the election.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. Gilliam Candy Co., Inc., is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
2. Bakery and Confectionery Workers International
Union of America, Local No. 199, AFL-CIO, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By threatening plant closure and harsher penalties for
violating company rules if the Union was selected as the
bargaining representative of the employees, Respondent
violated Section 8(aX 1) of the Act.
4. By questioning an employee concerning his refusal to
sign a statement. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
5. By promising increased employment opportunities at
Christmas if the employees rejected the Union, Respon-
dent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
7. Objections 3 and 4 are meritorious and are sustained.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices, it will be recommended that Respondent
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac-
tion to effectuate the policies of the Act.
As I have found that the Employer has engaged in con-
duct violative of Section 8(a)(I) of the Act and that such
conduct also interfered with the holding of a free election,
thereby affecting the results of the election conducted in
Case 9-RC-12602, I shall recommend that the election be
set aside and that Case 9-RC-12602 be severed from Case
9-CA-11605 and remanded to the Regional Director for
Region 9 for the purpose of conducting a new election at
an appropriate time to be fixed by the Regional Director.
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:
ORDER
The Respondent, Gilliam Candy Co., Inc., its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening plant closure if the Union is selected as
the bargaining representative of employees.
(b) Threatening employees with harsher penalties for in-
fractions of Company rules, if the Union is selected as the
bargaining representative of the employees.
(c) Questioning employees concerning their refusal to
sign affidavits or statements in the course of Respondent
investigating allegations of unfair labor practices or objec-
tions to elections.
'In the event no exceptions are filed as provided in Sec 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board. the findings,
conclusions, and Order herein shall. as provided in Sec. 102 48 of the Rules
and Regulations. be adopted b) the Board and become its findings, conclu-
sions, and Order. and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all
purposes.
995
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(d) Promising increased employment opportunities at
Christmas if the employees rejected the Union.
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist the Bakery and Con-
fectionery Workers International Union of America, Local
No. 199, 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 or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at Respondent's facility at Paducah, Kentucky,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 6 Copies
of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 9, after being duly signed by an authorized rep-
resentative of Respondent, shall be posted by Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof, for a period of 60 con-
secutive days, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Objections 3 and 4 be
sustained. It is also recommended that the election held on
July 19, 1977, in Case 9-RC-12062 be set aside and a sec-
ond election beheld at an appropriate time to be fixed by
the Regional Director.
6 In the event that this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NArTIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all parties had an opportunity to
present their evidence, the National Labor Relations Board
has found that we violated the National Labor Relations
Act and has ordered us to post this notice and to carry out
its provisions.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close our Paducah plant if
the employees select a labor organization to represent
them as their collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees that they will be
subjected to harsher penalties for infractions of Com-
pany rules if they select a labor organization to repre-
sent them as their collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT promise employees increased employ-
ment opportunities at Christmas if they reject the
Union.
WE WILL NOT question employees concerning their
refusal to sign affidavits or statements in the course of
our investigation of alleged unfair labor practices or
objections to an election.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the
right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist the
Bakery and Confectionery Workers International
Union of America, Local No. 199, 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 purposes of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec-
tion, or to refrain from any or all such activities.
GILLIAM CANDY Co., INC.
996