Wyman-Gordon Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1980

252 N.L.R.B. 1206 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Wyman-Gordon Company and International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW) and
Daniel R. Wilson. Cases 33-CA-4164-1-2 and
33-CA-4214
September 30, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND PENELLO
On June 6, 1980, Administrative Law Judge
Peter E. Donnelly issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel filed a 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, find-
ings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as
modified herein.2
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, as modi-
fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent,
Wyman-Gordon Company, Danville, Illinios, its of-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order, as
so modified:
1. Substitute the following for paragraphs 2(a)
and (b):
"(a) Offer to Daniel R. Wilson immediate and
full reinstatement to his former job or, if it no
longer exists, to a substantially equivalent job,
t Resploident has excepted to certain credibility findings nladc hb the
Administrative l.aw Judge It is the Board's established polio InIt Ito
overrule an adminstralive law judge's resollitiOils Mith respect Ito crcdi-
bility unless the clear preptoniderance of all (if rlte telex ant cidece conrl-
vinces us that tile resolutlions are incrorrect Standard Dry Iall P'rductsi
In,.. Ql NLRBI 544 (1950), enfd. 188 2d 362 (d Cir 1951) 'Ve hae
carefully examined the record and find no basis tlir rescrsing his filldings.
Nor do 'sse find rmcrit in Rsponldent's contentiotl that, bcause the Ad-
lnlilstrative law Judge generally discredited the Emnployer's 5itincsses
and credited the General Coulsel's witnesses, his credibility resolutios
are erroneous or attended by bias or prejudice L.R. . s Pitrrburilg
S.S. ( , 337 U S 65b (19419) Wec hase further conlidered Responlldent's
contenltiot that the Adniiuistraltive Law Judge has evidelcedl i bias
agalilst Rpondent's positlln. We have carefully cnsidered Ihe record
alid the attached Decisionl and reject these charges.
hii accordance "sith his partial dissent in l Olyrip Medical ('urpruulanr.
250i NI.IRB Ni 11 ( Q0), Menlher Jenkins sI till s ird tL lrest oil
backpacL due based ron the 'fornuilal set frth therein
252 NLRB No. 168
without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges previously enjoyed, and make him
whole for any loss of pay which he may have suf-
fered as a result of the discrimination practiced
against him in the manner set forth in the section
of this Decision entitled 'The Remedy.'
"(b) Offer immediate and full employment to
David Stark, without prejudice to his seniority or
other rights and privileges, and make him whole
for losses he suffered by reason of the discrimina-
tion against him as set forth in the section of the
Decision entitled 'The Remedy."'
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WIL. NOT interrogate employees con-
cerning their union activities and sentiments
and the union activities and sentiments of
other employees.
WE WILL NOr' threaten employees with loss
of benefits if they select union representation.
WI: WILl. NOT threaten employees with the
withholding of scheduled wage increases if
they select union representation.
WI: Wll.i NOT tell employees that the selec-
tion of union representation will be futile.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them under
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended.
WL WIll make Daniel R. Wilson whole for
any loss of pay he may have suffered as a
result of our discrimination practiced against
him, and WE WI.L reinstate him without prej-
udice to his seniority or other rights and privi-
leges previously enjoyed.
WF. WiLL offer a job to David Stark without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights and
privileges and WF WIlL. make him whole for
losses he suffered by reason of the discrimina-
tion against him, with interest.
WE wii. rescind and expunge any reference
to his unlawful discharge from Daniel R. Wil-
son's employment record.
All of our employees and job applicants are free
to become or remain members of International
1206
WYMAN-GORDON COMPANY
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America (UAW).
WYMAN-GORDON COMPANY
DECISION
STATEMENT O1: THE CASE
PETER E. DONNItI.',L, Administrative Law Judge: The
charges in 33-CA-4164-1 and 33-CA-4164-2 were filed
on March 12, 1979, by International Union, United Auto-
mobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW), herein called the Union or the Charg-
ing Party, and Daniel R. Wilson, an individual. A com-
plaint thereon issued April 27, 1979. An answer thereto
was timely filed by Wyman-Gordon Company, herein
called Respondent or the Employer. The charge in Case
33-CA-4214 was filed on April 6, 1979, by the Union
and a complaint thereon was issued on May 15, 1979. An
answer thereto was timely filed by Respondent. An
order consolidating cases and notice of consolidated
hearing was issued on May 16, 1979. An amendment to
the complaint in Case 33-CA-4214 was issued on August
10, 1979, and an answer thereto was timely filed by Re-
spondent. The complaint and amendment allege that Re-
spondent has engaged in various misconduct in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, including interrogation,
threats, and solicitation of grievances. In addition Re-
spondent has been charged with discrimination in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by refusing to hire
David Stark and by discharging Wilson. A hearing was
held before the Administrative Law Judge on August 21,
22, and 23 and September 17, 18, 19, and 20, 1979. Briefs
have been timely filed by the General Counsel and Re-
spondent which have been duly considered.
FINDINGS OF FAC I'
I. EMPI.OYER'S BUSINESS
Respondent is a Massachusetts corporation with an
office and place of business located at Danville, Illinois,
where it is engaged in the business of manufacturing
metal forgings, including crankshafts and related items.
The Employer during the past 12 months sold and
shipped from its Danville, Illinois, facility finished prod-
ucts valued in excess of $50,000 to points outside the
State of Illinois. The complaint alleges, the answer
admits, and I find that the Employer is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
' There is conflicting testimony regarding some allegations of the corn
plaint In resolving these conflicts I hase taken llnt) consideration lie ap-
parent inlerests of the sitnesses. In addition I have considered the inher-
ent probabilities the probabilities in light of other eernls; corroboration
or lack of it: and consistencies or inconsistencies within the testimony of
each witness and between the testim lon f eac;h and that of other it-
nesses s "ith siinlar apparent interests. In ealuating the testinlony of il-
nesses, I rely specificall upon his or her demcanor and hale made in
findings accordilgl While apart froml considerat ions of denleanor I
have taken into account Ihc ahoe-c-lloted credibility considcratilotns, ill
failure o detail eactih of these is 11t1 ItI be dceriled a failure on nl) palrt
havse fully cinitiderecd t I/hlor at, ul< o Inc- , h a l er' , 15
NI.RBI 11 61. II, (19h6)
II. IABOR ORGANIZATION
The complaint alleges, Respondent concedes, and I
find that the Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. ITH F AI.EGEDI) UNFAIR ABOR PRACTICIES
2
A. Facts'
1. Background
In a prior organizational effort in 1978 the Union was
defeated in a election. In a second organizational effort
in late 1978 and early 1979, a petition was filed on
March 19, and an election was conducted on June 7 and
8, among the production and maintenance employees. At
this election five ballots were challenged and they were
determinative as to the results of the election. At the
time of this hearing, the challenges had not yet been re-
solved and the outcome of that election was still in
doubt.
2. Allegations of coercion
Various supervisory employees of Respondent have
been charged with having violated Section 8(a)(l) of the
Act, including Richard Salts and Dan Terrell, both mate-
rial handling supervisors in the manufacturing depart-
ments; Ken Lucas, a preventive maintenance supervisor;
William Koutsis, general supervisor of the quality con-
trol department; Phil Tuttle and Greg Roberts, both
quality control supervisors under Koutsis; and Donald P.
Wood, security supervisor.
a. Richard Salts and Dan Terrell
In late January 1979, Michael Hammer, a labor pool
employee, testified that he was called by Salts into an
office used by supervisors where he was questioned by
Salts concerning his "attitude problem." He was asked if
he would be happy on another shift with a different su-
pervisor and Hammer responded that he would not. Salts
also asked him if he wanted a union and again Hammer
responded negatively. Salts recalled the conversation
with Hammer concerning his attitude, but denies asking
him about his union sentiments. However, Hammer's tes-
timony impressed me as the more accurate and I credit
it.
i Par. Sc of the complainl in 33-CA-4214 ,aas amended ait the hear-
ing to read, "On certain but unknown dates during the period fronm thie
latter part of February to the second eek of March 1979 and in April
I079 Respotndenl b Terrell, and/or Salts interrogatLd enlploces bout
their union ympathies at he employees' canteen or cafeteria area iand it
the emploecs' work area lof Respondent's faciliti " The General Counl-
sel', motion to cotrrect transcript. n opposition thereto having been filed.
is hereby granted
:' All dates refer o 1979 unless otherwise indicated.
The record hrein makes it clear that Pecsler. 'ss hile conducting in
lcrsticss. is ;icing v ithin the scope of her apparent allthorilt . anld Is arl
agent of the Rpondent who is rcsponsibl-. for her conduI t J P S,'
& (Compan. Irt., 243 NI.RH 996 (19741
Seceral eployees tstified that "lhird partl iterclltrinlon" at
erm used bh Res ponident to descrihbe the 'io(t ad te term ..sl usled
h, Platit Mlinalger Da e Porler i a letter to eplosees diLlring tile 1970)
reliCtton cipi ligll II rference to the iinllt n ((i C F.h ()i
1207
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Under Respondent's vacation request procedure,
Hammer and Don Pearman, another employee, had re-
quested to take their vacations in May, however, because
of the possibility that the anticipated representation elec-
tion might be held in May, they approached Terrell and
Salts in early March, to ask about the possibility of
changing the dates of their vacation request. Terrell was
uncertain, but Salts said for Hammer and Pearman to tell
them how they were going to vote and they would let
them know about their vacations. Despite Salts' denial, I
conclude that the corroborated testimony of Hammer
and Pearman is accurate and I credit them.
Some time about April 10, Virgil Evans, a hand forger
employee in the quality control department, was ap-
proached by Terrell in his work area. Terrell asked
Evans why he was prounion this year, when he had been
antiunion in the previous election. Evans responded that
he was unhappy with the wages and the benefits he was
receiving. Terrell answered, "Well I just want to know
that once a union is voted in all the benefits you have
will become negotiable and you stand to lose every-
thing." Terrell did not testify about this conversation and
I credit Evans' account.
b. Ken Lucas
Patrick Chrisman is a maintenance lubricator employee
of Respondent. Chrisman was active on the Union's
behalf during the 1979 organizational campaign. He was
an in-plant organizer and as such solicited authorization
cards from and distributed union literature among the
employees. He wore several UAW buttons and UAW
stickers on his hat beginning about January 15 and
throughout the union campaign. According to Chrisman,
on or about January 30 Lucas spoke to him asking him
how the Union was coming along and Chrisman told
him fine and that he was working on it. Lucas replied
that it was a free country and walked away. On the fol-
lowing day, January 31, outside the maintenance shop,
Lucas again spoke to Chrisman saying that he did not
want to see Chrisman talking to anybody inside the plant
on company time. Again on this same day, Chrisman
spoke to Lucas asking him if this order was directed to
him or to everybody in the maintenance department, and
Lucas replied that it was just him for the present but that
it would be everybody. Later, on the same day, Chris-
man spoke to Vernon Gehrke, supervisor of mainte-
nance, Lucas' supervisor, to complain that his treatment
of Lucas was unfair. Gehrke agreed to look into it, but
did not get back to Chrisman on the matter.
Lucas, on the other hand, testified that on January 29
he saw Chrisman engaged in a conversation with three
separate groups of employees at various times, all of
whom were on worktime, and as he approached the
groups dispersed. Chrisman concedes that these conver-
sations took place, but that they lasted only 5 to 10 min-
utes. On the next day it is undisputed that Lucas called
these conversations to Chrisman's attention and, accord-
ing to Lucas, he called Chrisman aside telling him not to
talk so much and to get his work done. When asked if
this meant he could not talk at all, Lucas replied that it
did not, only to cut down on the talk and to get the
work done. When asked if this admonition applied to ev-
eryone, Lucas replied that it did if they did not get the
work done. Gehrke testified that Chrisman complained
to him that Lucas had been harassing him, telling him to
stop talking and go back to work. Gehrke questioned
Lucas about the matter and was told that Lucas had told
Chrisman that he was talking too much and to work
more because there was much to be done by Chrisman in
his job as a lubricator on the third shift. It is undisputed
that Chrisman continued to engage employees in conver-
sation after this incident.
In reviewing the testimony of Chrisman, Lucas, and
Gehrke, I am not convinced that Lucas ever issued a
blanket prohibition prohibiting Chrisman from talking to
employees on "company time." Rather I find that he was
admonished not to converse at the expense of performing
his job.
c. Greg Roberts
Janet Sands, an employee in the quality control depart-
ment testified that beginning in late January, she wore a
"UAW" button everyday. On one occasion, she was
asked by Roberts what UAW was and she replied,
"Three letters put together" and Roberts told her, "Do
you know if you vote the Union in that you will start
with a blank sheet of paper, no pay and no benefits."
In another occurrence, during the last week of March
1979, Roberts approached Harold Hinzman, Sr., a ma-
chine operator in the quality control department while
he was working and asked him if he had any questions
about "union procedures." Hinzman, Sr., asked him a
question about bargaining and Roberts told him that "the
bargaining would start at zero," and that he did not
think the Employer would give them anymore even with
a union, and mentioned a strike at Respondent's plant in
Chicago where, he said, the employees had struck and
then returned to work for the same amount they were
offered before the strike began.
In another incident, on or about April 11, Roberts ap-
proached Byrant Hart, a hand forger employee. He took
Hart from his production line over to the break area
where Roberts showed him a letter dated April 11, from
E. Daniel Porter, plant manager, dealing with negotia-
tions should the Union be elected (Resp. Exh. 5) Roberts
asked him if he had any questions and Hart said that he
did not because he did not believe the letter represented
the true facts. Roberts became angry and told him it
would "be a long time before a contract was signed and
negotiated." Further that after bargaining began, "we
could also lose our pay and benefits." Roberts also said if
there were a strike employees could be replaced and
could be put on a preferential list and it could take up to
10 years to be recalled. Also that they could not get
their annual raise or quarterly cost-of-living allowances.
Roberts also told him that a strike could be called and
their dues raised without the employees having any say
about it. During the conversation Roberts asked Hart
why he wanted a union and Hart testified that he "just
laughed."
Roberts testified that while he spoke to just about ev-
eryone in his department about the Union he could not
specifically recall any of the above conversations. How-
1208
WNlYM N-(()RI)ON C(()MI'AN1
ever, he did answer questions concerninlg canmpaigil lit-
erature and the matter of collective hargaining, hut did
not use the phrase "bargaining begins at zero." Noting
particularly Roberts' somewhat limited recall of these
conversations with employees in his department, I con-
clude that the more specific versions of these conversa-
tions as testified to by the employees are the more accu-
rate, and I credit them.
d. William Koutsis
At the end of January or early February, according to
Sands, she was approached by Koutsis in the canteen
break area. After some personal conversation, he told
her that he wanted her to remember that if the Union
were elected they would be starting out with a "blank
sheet of paper, no pay, no benefits." Koutsis also asked
her why she thought a union was necessary and she re-
sponded that it was for better pay, benefits, and working
conditions. Koutsis' account of the conversation was that
Sands described all of the benefits the employees expect-
ed when the contract was negotiated. Koutsis testified
that he told her that as a result of collective bargaining
they might get more or less or remain the same. Despite
Koutsis' denial that he used the specific phrases "bar-
gaining begins at zero" or "you lose your wages, and
benefits," I conclude that Sands' version of the conversa-
tion is essentially accurate and I credit her.
In early April 1979, Koutsis engaged another employ-
ee, Harold Hinzman, Jr., in conversation on the produc-
tion line. Koutsis asked Hinzman, Jr., if he had any ques-
tions about Respondent's last election campaign letter
(Resp. Exh. 6) which had been been distributed to em-
ployees on the production line by Tuttle. Hinzman, Jr.,
asked Koutsis about contract negotiations and Koutsis re-
sponded that "negotiations would start at zero during the
collective bargaining and it would work up." While
Koutsis denies having said that bargaining begins at zero,
I credit Hinzman, Jr.'s version of the conversation.
e. Phil Tuttle
About March 28, Tuttle approached Virgil Evans in
his work area and asked him what he thought about Re-
spondent's campaign letter of March 28 (G.C. Exh. 10).
When Evans replied that he thought that the letter was
"bullshit," Tuttle asked why the employees were un-
happy and Evans mentioned his dissatisfaction with the
labor classifications and the matter of vacations and that
Respondent was requiring all vacations to be taken in
August rather than allowing some freedom in selecting
vacation periods. Tuttle responded that vacations were a
matter of company policy and, "The Union won't be
able to do anything about that." Tuttle recalls having a
conversation with Evans concerning Respondent's bene-
fits, but did not testify specifically as to the matter of va-
cation selection, and I credit Evans' version as to these
remarks.
In another incident, around about April 3, Tuttle ap-
proached Hinzman, Jr., in his work area and asked to
talk to him. After Hinzman, Jr., was relieved they both
went out to the break area and Tuttle inquired what
Hinzman, Jr., expected to get from the Union and asked
if e had lly questionHs about the Union or negoliatllions,
telling himil that negotiations would "start at zero" aid
start addiiig till agreement was reached. Tuttle went on
to saI that negotiations could take up to 12 months and
then on tile 12th month the employees could and prob-
abl \ would ote the Union ,ut. As to belefits. Tuttle re-
m;arked that benefits would be changed entirely, that
some benefits might improve. but it was doubtful and
that as to other benefits they probably wouldn't get as
much as they already had. Tuttle, while conceding the
fact of the conversation, testified that it took place at the
work area in response to questions by Hinzman, Jr.. but
that his response was that nothing could be taken away
while the contract was being negotiated, but that in the
collective-bargaining process anything could happen and
that things would not be the same; that it could be less in
some areas; more in some area; and some areas would
stay the same. Tuttle denies ever having used the phrase
"bargaining begins at zero" in conversation with any em-
ployee, however, my evaluation of both recitals per-
suades me that Hinzman, Jr.'s version is the more credi-
ble.
In another occurrence, on or about April 5, Tuttle ap-
proached Hinzman, Sr., and Hart while they were work-
ing and asked if they had any questions about the Union.
Hinzman, Sr., asked how they would begin. Tuttle told
him that they would "start at zero" and could go up or
down or stay the same. Tuttle noted that the Union
could call a strike and that he didn't think the Company
would give any more in money and the benefits that it
already had. Tuttle did not specifically testify to this
conversation except to generally deny he ever used the
phrase "bargaining begins at zero" in any of the conver-
sations with employees. In these circumstances I credit
the testimony of Hinzman, Sr., as to the conversation.
f. Donald Wood
On a date some time between Christmas and February
I, Ward approached Wilson and asked, "How the next
UAW president was doing?" Ward further testified,
"Don [Wood] asked me how the Union organization was
going at this time. And he asked me if we were getting a
lot of cards signed, and what departments in the plant
were lagging behind as far as signatures and the amount
of cards turned in and so on, whether or not there were
any new faces, and if a bunch of employees were orga-
nizing the union and that." Ward recalled a conversation
with Wilson wherein Wilson volunteered certain infor-
mation concerning the union organizational effort, but
denies asking Wilson any questions about the Union.
However, Wilson's testimony is the more plausible and I
credit him as to this conversation.
3. Refusal to hire Stark
In October 1978 Stark was employed as a millwright
at the Lauhoff Gain Company in Danville, Illinois. He
had been employed for about 9 years by Lauhoff, the last
2-1/2 years as a journeyman millwright. While employed
at Lauhoff he was a member of Local 972 of the Allied
Industrial Workers Union. He had served Local 972 as a
shop steward, as a member of the executive board, and
121))
DECISIONS ()OF NA'I'I()NAL LA3BOR RELA'IO()NS O()ARD
at the time of his application for employment with Re-
spondent he was the vice president of Local 972.
In response to Respondent's newspaper advertisement
for millwrights, Stark filed a written application for em-
ployment with Respondent as a "maintenance supervisor
or millwright." On October 27, 1978, Stark was inter-
viewed by Judith Peevler, an administrative assistant in
the Industrial Relations department. 4 During the course
of the interview Peevler advised Stark that Respondent
was a nonunion employer and asked him what he
thought about working in a nonunion operation. Stark
replied that he had never worked in a nonunion shop but
that he did not think it would be any trouble. Peevler
then asked if he was involved with the Union at Lauhoff
and Stark responded that he had been a shop steward,
had sat on committees, and was presently the vice presi-
dent of Local 972.
Peevler denied asking Stark any questions about
unions and testified that her questions were limited to
those set out in writing by Respondent as a part of the
hiring process (Resp. Exh. 1). Dan Wilson testified that
during the time he was conducting interviews while em-
ployed in the Industrial Relations department, from July
1976 to October 1977, he routinely, under instructions
from the then Industrial Relations Manager Jerry Sub-
lett, inquired of job applicants how they felt about work-
ing in a nonunion operation and that applicants with
strong prounion sympathies were rejected. Wilson testi-
fied that he also observed Peevler and Sublett make simi-
lar inquiries of job applicants on several occasions. Sev-
eral employees testified that they were questioned about
their union activities during prehire interviews. In these
circumstances I find that Stark's testimony concerning
the interview to be the more credible and I conclude
that he was questioned about his prior union activity.
During the course of the interview, Stark disclosed to
Peevler that he had been injured at Lauhoff and had
filed a workmen's compensation claim. In noting this on
the employment application Peevler wrote that he had
"filed [a] law suit." The following portion of the applica-
tion is captioned "Reason for Employ or Reject," and
thereon Peevler wrote, "David wants Maint. Supervisor.
Has been at Lauhoff 8 years. Doesn't feel he can go any
farther there. Seems to lean toward believing in 3rd
party intervention. Says he can handle any Millwright
work in Maint." According to Peevler, although she had
heard the term "third party intervention" 5 used to de-
scribe the Union, she had used the term to describe the
lawyer which she understood Stark had retained to sue
Lauhoff on the workmen's compensation claim.
Next, the application was marked on the front, "I.A."
meaning "Interview Active" and the application was
sent to Vernon Gehrke, maintenance general supervisor
for review.
Some time later it was returned to the Industrial Rela-
tions department were the "I.A." was changed to "I.I.
(Interview Inactive). R. 25 and 26 per Buzz [Gehrkel"
by Peggy Simpson, a clerk in the Industrial Relations de-
partment. Stark was sent a rejection letter some week or
two later. It is undisputed that another Lauhoff employ-
ee, a Local 972 union member Orel Gildersleeve, applied
for employment with Respondent in December 1978 and
was offered employment. However, it appears that Gil-
dersleeve was not an official or committeeman in Local
972.
Gehrke explained that after employment applications
are sent to him for a review he segregates them into
three groups, those he has reviewed and is interested in,
those he has reviewed and is not interested in, and those
he has not yet reviewed. As to those he is not interested
in, he attaches a note to whomever sent them to him
reading "No Interest" to the top of that group of appli-
cations, whereupon they are returned to the Industrial
Relations department where they are changed from
"I.A" to ".I." Gehrke has no independent recollection
of Stark's file, but testified that he would have been in-
terested in pursuing his application because he had the
requisite work experience. Gehrke surmised that Stark's
application had been attached underneath the application
of one Ronnie Parlier who was interviewed by Peevler
on the same date and whose application Gehrke can
recall reviewing, and that when Parlier's application was
returned to the Industrial Relations department in the
"No Interest" pile, Stark's was mistakenly sent also.
Gehrke also testified that many of the employees in his
department had previously belonged to unions and that
job applicants were not rejected because of union senti-
ments.
4. Daniel Wilson's discharge
After the Union's unsuccessful attempt to organize Re-
spondent in 1978, Wilson was among the first employees
to approach the Union about a renewed organizational
effort in November 1978. Thereafter Wilson attended
union meetings and obtained union literature and authori-
zation cards from the Union. Wilson distributed union lit-
erature to Respondent's employees and solicited employ-
ees to sign authorization cards. Prior to his discharge on
February 6, Wilson distributed about 15 to 20 authoriza-
tion cards and turned in about four signed cards to the
Union.
Beginning in December 1978, Wilson wore a UAW
button and colored tape on his hard hat spelling UAW.
Wilson wore these daily until he was discharged. In Jan-
uary 1979 during a conversation with Steven Faulkner,
maintenance supervisor, Faulkner made reference to Wil-
son's UAW button and Wilson responded that he would
be glad when the Union got in because then he would
have a UAW journeyman's card for the apprentice train-
ing he was undergoing instead of Respondent's "Mickey
Mouse" diploma.
Wilson was first employed by Respondent in February
1976 as a security guard until he was moved to the In-
dustrial Relations department in July 1976 as an adminis-
trative assistant. In February 1978 he transferred into the
1210
WYMAN-GO(RDON C()MPANY
maintenance department as an electrician's apprentice.
As part of the maintenance training program, employees
are required to attend courses at Danville Area Commu-
nity College. Respondent paid the tuition for these
courses and the employees were paid their regular
hourly rate when they attended classes during their
working shift with an allowance of 15 minutes each way
for travel to and from the college. When they attended
classes off shift time they were paid their normal hourly
straight-time rate for their class time.
Wilson attended a course called "Industrial Electric-
ity" which met twice a week. Classes for the fall semes-
ter of 1978 began on August 21, 1978, and continued
through December 17, 1978. Originally, Wilson was
scheduled for morning classes taught by an instructor
named Blackburn on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 9
a.m. to 11:05 a.m. However, because of difficulty in
making the class, he requested permission and transferred
to afternoon classes in the same course taught by an in-
structor named Bruce Rape, beginning with the class of
September 27, 1978. Rape's class met on Monday and
Wednesday from I to 3:05 p.m.
The management official responsible for the adminis-
tration of the training program, including the courses at
the college, was Bruce Blinn, Industrial Relations assis-
tant. Blinn was told by Wilson that he had missed some
of these classes with Blackburn. Blinn did not check the
attendance of the maintenance employees attending the
college until the end of the semester, despite the fact that
he had represented in a letter dated September 18, 1978,
to Russell Cheney, accounting supervisor, that he would
be auditing their attendance on a monthly basis. 6
On or about January 15, Blinn contacted Rape by tele-
phone and inquired about Wilson's attendance record.
Rape told him that Wilson's attendance was very poor.
Blinn's notes of this conversation reflect nine absences
beginning during the period from October 23, 1978,
through December 4, 1978.
On January 29, Wilson was called to Gehrke's office
where Wilson met with Blinn and Gehrke concerning
the matter of class absences. Blinn told Wilson that he
had checked with Wilson's instructor and discovered
that Wilson had missed several classes for which he had
been paid. Wilson offered excuses for the various ab-
sences, including that he was on vacation during part of
the semester; that his son was ill; that he had reported
late for class on two occasions and that another class had
been canceled. Wilson offered to pay for any classes
missed for which he had been paid. Blinn told him that
was not what Respondent was looking for. Wilson pro-
tested that while he had missed four or five classes, he
had reported them to Respondent and that he should not
have been paid for them.
After this meeting, Blinn advised John Donovan, man-
ager of Industrial Relations, that Wilson may have
6 In addition to Wilson, three other maintenance departnenlt employ-
ees were taking courses during the same semester at the college These
were Harold Hitizman. Jr., Wes Wheeler. and Ross Trimmell As to
Wheeler, who missed about six classes. Blinn concedes that there were
"one or two classes that he missed and as paid for." It is undispulted
that Wilson was not disciplined; nor was the matter eer discussed with
him.
missed some classes for which he had been paid. At a
meeting attended by Donovan, Blinn, Gehrke, Porter,
and John Knott, another Respondent official, the deci-
sion was made to discharge Wilson. On February 2,
Wilson was called for a meeting in Donovan's office.
The charges against Wilson were reviewed and Wilson
again offered to pay for any absences established by Re-
spondent for which he had been paid. This proposal was
rejected and Wilson was suspended for 48 hours, subject
to discharge.7
Donovan requested Blinn to contact Rape again and
request confirmation in writing as to classes not attended
by Wilson, pending which Wilson was suspended an ad-
ditional day. By letter dated February 5, Rape wrote to
Blinn as follows:
Upon a conversation with Mr. Blackburn, I autho-
rized Dan Wilson's transfer from Mr. Blackburn's
class into mine which met on Mondays and
Wednesdays from 1:00 to 3:05. After this conversa-
tion I didn't see Mr. Wilson for a couple of weeks.
He began attending my class on the 27th of Septem-
ber and he attended regularly until midterm (dates
2, 4, 9, 11, 16, 18 of October). He then missed a
complete week and from then on his attendance
was very poor. The dates he attended during the
second half of this semester were October 30, Nov.
13 and 15 and Dec. 6. His poor attendance led to a
very poor practical examination and a poor grade
for the course.
At the hearing Rape testified to Wilson's class ab-
sences. Rape's attendance sheets showed that Wilson
started Rape's classes on September 27 with absences be-
ginning October 23 on the following dates: October 23
and 25; November 1, 6, 8, 20, 27, and 29; and December
4. By way of explanation, Rape testified that he took at-
tendance at the beginning of class by looking around the
class and checking off those present, without any roll
call. Rape also testified that a practical test was given to
all students, four students per class, on four class days;
i.e., November 22, 27, 29, and December 4. According to
Rape, Wilson was scheduled to take the practical test on
November 22, and while the attendance sheets did not
reflect his absence, Rape testified that he recalls that
Wilson was assigned to take the practical test on that
date and that he was absent. Wilson took his practical
test on December 4, but was unable to complete it, re-
ceiving a grade of "D."
Except for the day that the practical test was given,
classes were not held for the rest of the class on the
other 3 days. During the last week of the semester, De-
cember II thru 15, attendance was required on only 1
day in order to take the final exam. Rape could not
recall which date the exam was given. Wilson received a
"B" on this exam and a final grade of "C" for the semes-
ter.
On February 6, another meeting was held attended by
Wilson, Donovan, and Gehrke in Blinn's office, howev-
' Under Respondents personnel policles all discharges are subject to a
prior 4-hour suspenson
1211
DIECISIONS ()F NA I()NAL LABO()R RElATI()NS BOARD
er, Blinn was not present. At this meeting, the prior deci-
sion made to discharge Wilson was confirmed. Wilson
was read the disciplinary notice reciting the reasons for
his discharge, essentially that he had stolen from Respon-
dent by accepting money for classes he had not attended,
reciting the dates of the missed classes as October 23 and
25, November 1, 6, 8X. 20, 22, 27, 29, and December 4.
Wilson was asked to sign the discharge notice but he re-
fused.
With respect to the matter of reporting absences there
appears to have been no formal reporting procedures.
Blinn testified Wilson was supposed to attend class,
"And when he didn't attend class he was supposed to
notify us. And we didn't know why he had missed these
classes, and he had been paid for them and didn't notify
us." Later, "No. I felt he would tell the planner or the
dispatcher that he was attending classes and they would
handle the pay situation. I was not involved directly
with securing him the pay. That was handled through
his maintenance office and he should have told them that
he was not attending classes so they could take care of
the necessary paper work." Wilson testified that he did
not attend class during his -week vacation in early Sep-
tember during the week of Labor Day, but that prior to
his vacation he had reported this intention to Supervisor
Steve Faulkner, who told him that if he did go to class
during vacation he should tell them he had gone so that
he could be paid for it." With respect to the class on Oc-
tober 23, Wilson maintains that he did attend on that
date. As for November 1, 6, and 8, Wilson testified that
his son was hospitalized at those times with double pneu-
monia and that he had reported those absences to Barry
Kennedy, planner in the maintenance department.
Wilson testified that he broke a tooth and missed class on
December 4 because of a dentist appointment and that he
had also reported this absence to Kennedy and later to
Faulkner and also Blinn.
Wilson testified that he did not know whether or not
he had been paid for classes he had not attended. He was
aware that he earned about $6.60 per hour; however,
there were many variables which could affect the
amount of pay he actually received. First, Wilson, like
all maintenance department employees, works on a rotat-
ing shift basis and Respondent's pay structure provides
for shift differential compensation. There is a cost-of-
living computation which also represents additional com-
pensation to employees, except that this is not computed
on class-time pay. Respondent also utilizes cash advances
to compensate employees for pay shortage errors in prior
checks, and while these constitute additional compensa-
tion for employees, they show as a deduction on the pay
stub for the following payday. Kennedy was given a
cash advance of $25 on November 3 for a pay shortage
during the payroll period ending October 28, 1978.
Jacque Marbury, payroll clerk, testified that this was
compensation for classes presumably attended by Wilson
4 Blinn testified that he was not aware that 'ilson had been paid for
classes not attended during his vacation until shortly before the hearinig
and these absences were not a factor in Wilson's discharge.
u cginllning in October. it as Kennedy's responsibhility io fill out a
weekly report form for the payroill department indicating those employ-
ees attending class and the number of hours
on October 23 and 25. Wilson signed a receipt for this
cash advance. The receipt does not identify the reason
for the advance and Wilson, whose testimony I credit in
this regard, testified that he was under the impression
that the cash advance constituted payment for premium
pay erroneously not included in his paycheck. While
Marbury testified that she explained the reason for the
cash advance to Wilson, the confusing nature of Respon-
dent's payroll procedures for handling cash advances to-
gether with the fact that neither the cash advance receipt
nor the pay stub identify the reasons for the advance,
combine to make credible Wilson's testimony that, al-
though uncertain, he felt that the cash advance was pay-
ment for premium pay. In making this credibility resolu-
tion, I have also considered the testimony of Marbury to
the effect that the cash advance system was confusing to
employees, and that even after it had been explained to
them they still don't understand it.
As to the pay stub received by the employees, this
does not reflect the reason for or identify the basis for
the transactions shown thereon. It is impossible for
anyone to tell from a reading of the pay stubs what the
amounts shown thereon relate to under the headings
"payroll deductions" and "mis. deduct." Thus, despite
the fact that this school pay deduction may have been
explained to him by Marbury, I am not persuaded that
he understood whatever that explanation was.
B. Discussion and Analysis
1. Allegation of coercion
As noted above, in January 1979, Salts inquired of
Hammer concerning his desire for a union representa-
tion. Later, in March 1979, Salts inquired of Hammer
and Pearman about their voting intentions in the upcom-
ing representation election. Employees are guaranteed,
by the Act, freedom from interference in selecting a col-
lective-bargaining representative. This right includes
freedom from interrogation by employers concerning
their union sentiments or activities. Salts' questions vio-
lated this right in contravention of Section 8(a)(l) of the
Act. The General Counsel has alleged and the record
has fully supports findings of unlawful interrogation in
several other incidents including interrogation by Lucas,
Terrell, and Peevler.
Employees are also guaranteed the right to select a
collective-bargaining representative free from any other
type of interference or coercion. In this regard, Terrell's
conversation with Evans in April 1979 violates the Act,
since the implication of his remarks is that the selection
of a collective-bargaining representative by the employ-
ees would have the effect of wiping out all existing bene-
fits and that negotiating thereon, as a part of the collec-
tive- bargaining process, might result in a total loss of all
employee benefits. Such statements are coercive within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
Similarly, in late January, Roberts approached Janet
Sands, and in conversation told her, in essence, that if
the Union were voted in, the collective-bargaining pro-
cess would begin with a "blank sheet of paper, no pay
and no benefits." Statements of substantially the same
1212
WYMAN-GORDON COMPANY
content were made by Roberts to Hart on about April
11, when Roberts told him that negotiation of a contract
would take a long time; that during negotiations employ-
ees would lose pay and benefits; and that in the event of
a strike employees could be replaced, put on a preferen-
tial hiring list, and that it could take up to 10 years to be
rehired. Also that they would not get their annual raise
or cost-of-living allowances. Koutsis also made like rep-
resentations to Sands and Hinzman, Jr., in January and
April, respectively. Tuttle also engaged employees Hinz-
man, Jr., and Hinzman, Sr., in similar conversations. As
to Hinzman, Jr., Tuttle expressed to him that if the
Union won the election bargaining would "start at zero."
Further that negotiations could take up to 12 months,
when the Union would probably be voted out; that im-
proved benefits would be doubtful; and that other bene-
fits probably would be less. Again, when Tuttle told
Evans on or about March 28 that the Union would not
be able to negotiate anything about vacation scheduling,
Tuttle was conveying to Evans a sense of futility in
union representation. Likewise in March 1979, when
Roberts spoke to Hinzman to the effect that bargaining
would start at zero and he opined that the Employer
would not be able to give anything over present benefits.
Such representations are unlawful in violation of Section
8(a)(l) of the Act. In addition, I conclude that those re-
marks made by Roberts to Hart suggesting that wage in-
creases already scheduled would be withheld in the
event of union representation are also unlawful as threats
of reprisal if the Union prevailed in the matter of repre-
sentation.
As detailed above, Peevler interrogated Stark during a
prehire interview concerning his union sentiments and in-
volvements during prior employment. Such preemploy-
ment interview interrogation is unlawful in violation of
Section (a)(I) of the Act.
The General Counsel also alleges that Lucas violated
the Act by prohibiting Chrisman from speaking with
other employees. However, it is my conclusion that the
facts show that Chrisman was not so restrained. He was
told only not too converse at the expense of doing his
job. In these circumstances, the General Counsel's allega-
tion in this regard must fail.
Another allegation of the General Counsel is that Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when Tuttle
spoke to Evans about conditions in the plant on March
28. In my opinion, this conversation viewed in its con-
text and its totality, cannot properly be described as "so-
licitation of grievances," despite the fact that Tuttle did
make general inquiry about the unhappiness of the em-
ployees.
2. Refusal to hire Stark
It is the contention of the General Counsel that Re-
spondent failed and refused to hire Stark because of his
union activities and sympathies at his place of prior em-
ployment, Lauhoff Gain Company. In support of this
contention the General Counsel introduced evidence
showing that Stark was an active union adherent at Lau-
hoff and that he was, in fact, vice president of Local 972,
Allied Industrial Workers Union at the time of his appli-
cation at Respondent. As noted above, at the time of his
employment interview he was unlawfully interrogated by
Peevler concerning his union activities at Lauhoff and
thereupon disclosed the full extent of his involvement.
On his employment application Peevler noted that Stark
"seems to lead toward believing in 3rd party interven-
tion." While Peevler explained that she was referring to
Stark's hiring an attorney in connection with his work-
men compensation claim, I find this explanation strained
and unconvincing, particularly since Peevler was ware
that the term "third party" was used by Respondent to
describe the Union, and the Employer's openly antiunion
posture. In essence, this notation was simply a tip off to
those in management with hiring responsibility as to
Stark's attitude about unions. Certainly a matter of inter-
est to Respondent in view of its openly hostile union
posture.
It is also significant to note that Respondent needed
millwrights at the time that Stark applied. This is not in
dispute and was conceded by Gehrke during the course
of his testimony.
Respondent's explanation for its failure to hire Stark is
pure conjecture. Gehrke surmised that Starks' applica-
tion was returned by him to the Industrial Relations de-
partment attached underneath a rejected application. Re-
spondent suggests that I accept this recitation of conjec-
ture over the General Counsel's factual support for the
contention that Respondent's rejection of Stark was
based on Respondent's reluctance to hire the vice presi-
dent of Local 972.
Respondent also points to the fact that many employ-
ees in the maintenance department have had some prior
union affiliation, and that one, Darnell Rich, would have
been hired, but for his failure to pass the physical. In this
regard, I note that Rich was never hired and that all
were considerably more passive in their union activities
than was Stark.
In conclusion, I am constrained to reject Respondent's
theory about how Stark's application came to be rejected
and to accept the substantially more probable explana-
tion, which is supported by probative evidence from
which a proper finding of discrimination is made, par-
ticularly in view of Respondent's other unfair labor prac-
tices as found herein. Accordingly, I find that Respon-
dent refused to hire Stark because of his union activity
and sentiments in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
Young Hinkle Corporation, 244 NLRB 264 (1979).
3. Wilson's discharge
The General Counsel contends that Wilson's discharge
was motivated by Respondent's decision to rid itself of
active union adherent. Respondent, on the other hand,
takes the position that Wilson was discharged for "steal-
ing," inasmuch as he accepted pay for hours spent at-
tending classes which he did not in fact attend.
To begin with, it is clear that Wilson was actively en-
gaged in promoting the Union's organizational effort in
late 1978 and early 1979. Prior to his discharge on Feb-
ruary 6, he attended union meetings, obtained union au-
thorization cards, and distributed literature among em-
ployees. He wore a union button and a UAW stricker on
his hat on a regular basis. That Respondent was aware of
1213
DECISIONS ()F NATIONAL L.ABOR RELATIONS O()ARD
Wilson's sentiments is clear, particularly in view of con-
versations he had with Faulkner and Wood in which he
disclosed openly prounion feelings.
The real issue in this case is whether or not Wilson's
discharge was motivated by antiunion considerations.
This entails an examination of the reason assigned by Re-
spondent for his discharge, i.e., "stealing" and a review
of Respondent's maintenance training program. First,
there appears to have been no formal reporting proce-
dures established to provide trainees with a means of no-
tifying management of class absences. No single manage-
ment official was designated for that purpose. Blinn testi-
fied that Wilson should have advised the "maintenance
office" as to his absences. The record discloses that
Wilson did advise certain individuals as to several of his
absences. Blinn admits that he was told by Wilson on
September 20, 1978, that he had missed some morning
classes and it was for that reason that he was transferred
to afternoon classes. Concededly Wilson did not attend
classes during his September vacation, but he so advised
Supervisor Faulkner prior to his vacation. Absences on
November 1, 6, and 8, 1978, were on account of his son's
hospitalization and were reported to Kennedy. His ab-
sence on December 4, 1978, was for a dentist's appoint-
ment which was reported to Kennedy and later to Faulk-
ner and Blinn. November 1, 6, and 8 and December 4
are among those dates recited in Wilson's discharge
notice as basis for his discharge. While the question re-
mains whether or not Wilson was properly discharged
for accepting payment for classes not attended, Respon-
dent bears at least some of the responsibility since it cre-
ated the circumstances in which Wilson came to be paid
by not taking the preventive corrective action it could
and should have taken to prevent payment or to recover
payment if made in error. Clearly, Respondent's failure
to establish a better reporting procedure made it possible
for Wilson to be paid for whatever classes he did not
attend.
But even assuming, as I do, that Wilson was paid for
at least some classes which he did not attend, the crux of
this matter was whether or not Wilson knowingly ac-
cepted and retained these overpayments. As set out in
greater detail above, and in the record, Wilson was ap-
prised of additions to and deductions from his pay by
means of pay stub accompanying his check. However,
this stub recited the general headings "payroll adjust-
ments" and "misc. deduct." It was not possible to deter-
mine what specific transactions were included under
those headings without resort to internal accounting doc-
uments.
Adding to this confusion were Respondent's account-
ing procedures. For example, on-shift class hours origi-
nally were paid as a part of regular earnings and off-shift
hours as a pay adjustment. Later all class hours were
paid as an adjustment. Payroll adjustments also included
third shift premium, cost-of-living payments, and adjust-
ments from prior pay periods. In addition all the trainees
worked rotating shifts requiring both on and off-shift pay
considerations, as well as computations to account for
shift differentials.
Respondent points out Wilson accepted a cash ad-
vance which was explained to him by payroll clerk Mar-
bury as being payment for classes which Wilson had
missed. In view of the basically confusing nature of the
Respondent's accounting procedures,' ° and the fact that
employees still did not understand the accounting proce-
dures involved in cash advance system, even after expla-
nation, as Marbury testified, convinced me that Wilson's
confusion about the basis for the cash advance was gen-
iune and it was not "thievery" as Respondent contends.
Respondent must have been aware that employees are
not able, without a breakdown, to understand the indi-
vidual computations made to arrive at the figures which
appeared on their payroll stubs as "payroll adjustments."
Nevertheless, Wilson was called in and summarily dis-
charged for "stealing," despite his offer to repay Respon-
dent for classes not attended for which he had been paid,
and this offer was promptly rejected.
While Respondent took the position that only the ex-
treme measure of discharge would suffice as to Wilson,
quite another approach was taken in the matter of Wes
Wheeler. Wheeler was also a maintenance trainee attend-
ing classes. Blinn concedes that Wheeler was paid for
classes not attended, but did not even raise the matter
with him, much less discipline or even warn him. While
Respondent may have regarded Wheeler's infraction as
less severe, it seems strange that Wilson should have
been discharged for the same type of "stealing" that was
never even mentioned with Wheeler. Was Wheeler less
of a "thief' because he "stole" less than Wilson?
In summary it is my conclusion that while Wilson did
accept, as part of his pay, money for classes not attend-
ed, it was not an intentional attempt by him to steal from
Respondent, and, given all the circumstances set out
above, Respondent's overreaction to the matter, resulting
in Wilson's termination, was motivated by antiunion con-
siderations. In reaching this conclusion, I also have taken
into consideration Respondent's basic antiunion attitude
and the other 8(a)(l) and (3) findings made herein.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR I.ABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent as set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with Respondent's oper-
ations described in section 1, above, have a close, inti-
mate, 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.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in, and is
engaging in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recom-
mend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative actions designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act. I have found that Respondent discharged
Daniel R. WilsonLI and refused to hire David Stark for
'o For example, a cash advance appears as a "miscellaneous deduc-
tion" on the succeeding pay stub.
' Since I have concluded that Wilson did not knowingly accept pay-
ment for classes nor attended, I reject Respondent's contention that his
conduct was so wrongful or egregious as to preclude his reinstatement
and backpay
1214
WYMAN-Ci()RI)()N COMPANY
reasons which offended the provisions of Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act. I shall therefore recommend that Respondent
make them whole for any loss of pay for which they
may have suffered as a result of the discrimination prac-
ticed against them. Backpay provided herein with inter-
est thereon to be computed in the manner prescribed in
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and
Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977) 12
CONCLUSIONS o Lw
I. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
& Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW)
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is en-
gaging in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section
8(a)(l) of the Act.
4. By unlawfully discharging Daniel R. Wilson, Re-
spondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
5. By discriminatorily failing and refusing to hire
David Stark, Respondent engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and the entire record and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, I
hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER't
The Respondent, Wyman-Gordon Company, Danville,
Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating employees concerning their union ac-
tivities and sentiments, and the union activities and senti-
ments of other employees.
(b) Threatening employees with loss of benefits if they
select union representation.
(c) Threatening employees with the withholding of
scheduled wage increases if they select union representa-
tion.
2 See, generally, Iis Plumbing & Heating Co.. 138 NLRB 716 (1962)
3 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided
in Sec 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and
become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections therelo
shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
(d) Telling employees that the selection of union rep-
resentation would he futile.
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights gaur-
anteed them under Section 7 of the Act. 1 4
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Daniel R. Wilson immediate and full rein-
statement to his former job or, if it no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent job, without prejudice to his se-
niority or other rights, and make him whole for any loss
of pay which he may have suffered as a result of the dis-
crimination practiced against him in the manner set forth
in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Offer immediate and full employment to David
Stark, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights,
and make him whole for losses he suffered by reason of
the discrimination against him as set forth in the section
of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Rescind and expunge any reference to his unlawful
discharge from Daniel R. Wilson's unemployment
record.
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security records, and reports and
all the records necessary to analyze the amounts of back-
pay due herein.
(e) Post at its Danville, Illinois, plant. copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix." '5 Copies of said
notice on forms to be provided by the Regional Director
for Region 33, after being duly signed by Respondent's
authorized representatives, shall be posted by them im-
mediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by
them for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including 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.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 33, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps have been taken to comply herewith.
1' In my opinion, the unfair labor practices herein are so egregious and
widespread as to show a general disregard fr the employees fundamental
statutory rights, and broad cease and desist language is appropriate tikA-
motn Io)ds. Inc., 242 NLRB 1357 (1979).
i1 In the eent this Order is enforced h a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted h5
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Postled Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enfoircing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board"
1215