Glasforms, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Apr 15, 2003

10-CA-033715 (N.L.R.B. Apr. 15, 2003)

JD(ATL)—24—03
Birmingham, AL

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
ATLANTA BRANCH OFFICE

GLASFORMS, INC.

and CASES 10–CA–33715

LEROY BOYD, An Individual

and 10–CA–33717

UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA,
AFL-CIO-CLC

and 10–CA–33852

GILBERT GORDON, An Individual

JOHN DOYLE, Esq.,
for the General Counsel.
M. JEFFERSON STARLING, III, Esq., and
CHRISTOPHER T. TERRELL, ESQ.
for the Respondent.

DECISION

Statement of the Case

LAWRENCE W. CULLEN, Administrative Law Judge: At the hearing the
parties filed with the undersigned a Joint Motion for the approval of a non-Board
settlement in Cases 10–CA–33715 and 10–CA–33852 and the severance of those cases
leaving only part of Case 10–CA–33717, specifically allegations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 21(e), (f),
(h), 22, 24, and 25, which had been filed by the United Steelworkers of America AFL-
CIO-CLC (“the Charging Party” or “the Union”) for trial. I granted the Motion at the
hearing and heard Case 10–CA–33717 on February 3, 2003, in Birmingham, Alabama.
The complaint as amended at the hearing was issued by the Regional Director of Region
10 of the National Labor Relations Board (“the Board”) and is based on charges filed by
the Union on May 7, 2002. The complaint alleges that Glasforms, Inc., (“the
Respondent” or “the Company”) violated Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor

JD(ATL)—24—02
- 2 -
Relations Act (“the Act”). Respondent has by its answer denied the commission of any
violations of the Act.

On the entire record, including testimony of the witnesses and exhibits received in
evidence and after consideration of the positions of the parties in their opening and
closing statements at the hearing, I make the following:

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

I. Jurisdiction

The complaint alleges, Respondent admits and I find that at all times material
herein, Respondent has been a California corporation, with an office and place of
business in Birmingham, Alabama, herein called its facility, where it has been engaged in
the business of producing fiberglass products, that during the last 12 months, Respondent,
in conducting its business operations as set out above, sold and shipped goods valued in
excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the State of Alabama and that at
all material times Respondent has been an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.

II. The Labor Organization

The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find that at all times material
herein, the Union has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.

III. Agents and Supervisors

The complaint alleges, Respondent admits and I find that at all times material
herein, the following individuals have held the positions set forth opposite their
respective names and have been agents and supervisors of Respondent within the
meaning of Section 2(11) and 2(13) of the Act.

Peter Pfaff President
Roger Bass Vice President
Herschel Beahme Director, Human Resources
Louis (Pete) Herndon Plant Manager
Kevin Harding Manager
Richard Parkko Supervisor
Robert Rollins Supervisor
Nick Taylor Supervisor
Tracy Patigayon Supervisor
Jose Garcia Supervisor
Tyrone Chapman Leadman

Kevin Lyles Leadman
JD(ATL)—24—02
- 3 -

IV. The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices1

In March, 2002, the Union commenced an organizational campaign among the
Respondent’s employees. When the Company learned of the campaign, Company
officials and the Company’s attorneys met with supervisors and instructed them as to
how they should act and what they could and could not do under the Act. On April 23,
2002, the Company met with its supervisors in the Company’s conference room in
building No. 3 and stuffed cardboard into the window areas in the conference room for
privacy.

There are 3 buildings in Respondent’s complex in Birmingham, Alabama. Small
diameter products such as small rods, round rods and flatbar used for sand racing are
produced in Building 1. Larger diameter round rods used for electrical insulators on
power poles are produced in Building 2. Building 3 is used for the Kenworth floor
manufacturing which is an essentially automated unit that requires a minimum of
manpower to run it. There were three employees in building 3. They were William
Bailey and another non-supervisory employee named Vernon Guy Carlson and their
supervisor Richard Parkko. Carlson was the operator of the Kenworth line and Bailey
was an industrial helper and assisted Carlson. Parkko also assisted as required.

The Kenworth line is a production process utilized to make floor boards for
Kenworth T 2000 semi-trucks. It is a CRTM unit (continuous resin transfer molding).
There is a balsa saw on the Kenworth line used to trim the edge of the balsawood, which
is fashioned into the final product of floor boards. It is used to trim the balsawood to a
48-inch length on both ends to ensure that it is a uniform length. After a panel has been
cut to length an edge saw is used to trim the edges of the panel before it goes to the CNC
(computerized numerical control) machine which carves the “blank” out and installs all
the drill holes. The “blank” is the designated name of the piece of balsawood which has
been carved out by the CNC. In performing this process, the balsa is on pallets. The
balsawood is 2.070 inches thick and is put into a die with four layers of mat on the top
and on the bottom of the mat. The mat consists of woven fiberglass. Resin is injected
into the mat and hardens the mat. Resin is a mixture of resin and clay and contains a
catalyst which creates the heat and helps it to cure to a large form with a fiberglass finish.
The resin is loaded through pressure pots. The end product of this process is the blank
which is a smooth fiberglass type of product which is attached to the floor of the truck
with small rib nuts.

William Bailey was employed by Respondent in January of 2000. He was
promoted, received favorable job ratings and in 2001 became an industrial helper in
building 3 where he worked with his supervisor Richard Parkko and non-supervisory
employee Vernon Guy Carlson who operated the Kenworth line with assistance from

1 The following includes a composite of the credited testimony and the exhibits received in
evidence.

JD(ATL)—24—02
- 4 -
Parkko and Bailey. This line was usually only operated one day a week. The resin
utilized for the Kenworth line was called a WO mixture and was made by resin techs in
building 2. However, because of problems with spills and faulty resin mixture, Plant
Manager Louis (Pete) Herndon decided that the resin should be mixed by someone in
building 3 who was familiar with the Kenworth process. He and Parkko met with Bailey
and asked him to “learn” the job of mixing the resin for the Kenworth process. Bailey
agreed and was given a 50 cents per hour raise. This duty was added to his job duties in
November of 2001 and was performed without incident by Bailey until late April 2002
and to the apparent satisfaction of Herndon and Parkko. Initially there were only a few
loads of resin required to be mixed but the production rate of the Kenworth process was
increased and this required the making of additional resin batches by Bailey. As a result
Bailey began to feel he was overburdened and was not able to assist with the Kenworth
job during its operation as he expected to do to learn how to operate the Kenworth line.

The Union commenced an organizational campaign among Respondent’s
production employees in March 2002. Bailey signed a Union authorization card on
March 29, 2002. The Respondent became aware of the Union campaign in late March.
Respondent met with its supervisors and leadmen in its conference room in building 3 to
discuss the Union campaign. Bailey testified that about the end of March he was asked to
bring cardboard to the conference room by Peter Pfaff, the President of the Company.
Hersch Beahme, who was then the Human Resources Manager, put the cardboard up to
block the windows to the conference room. The meeting lasted about three hours and
ended about 10:00 a.m. Bailey saw supervisors Nick Taylor and Tracy Patigayon and
Manager Kevin Harding when they came out of the meeting. He asked them what was
going on. Taylor said his supervisor would let him know. Patigayon said it was “Union
stuff.” He also heard one of the supervisors state that President Pfaff was not going to let
the Union come in and would fire everybody first.

Bailey testified that later that day his supervisor Parkko told him to join him for a
break and they went to an outside area where smoking is permitted. Parkko told him that
the Building 3 employees needed to stay out of the “conflict” at building 1. Parkko also
said that the Respondent’s President had said the Union would not come in, that the
employees’ pay would be frozen and that the employees would not get their July review
(raise) if the Union came in. Bailey told Parkko they had to get their July review. Parkko
told him that no one would score high enough to get a raise as a score of 80 percent or
better was required to be eligible for the raise.

Bailey testified further that a week to two weeks later he was in the break room in
building 3 and supervisor Parkko came in and handed him a paper and told him that if he
had signed a card and no longer wanted the Union, he needed to sign the form and send it
to the Union. Bailey testified he had never disclosed to Parkko that he had signed a card
or asked him how to revoke the card. Bailey also testified that in late April he went to
building 1 to get some gloves which were dispensed to employees by supervisor Rollins
from that location as required. He met Rollins between buildings 1 and 2. He told
Rollins that he was tired of doing both jobs of industrial helper and resin tech and
remarked that, if the Union came in he would go back to doing just one job. Rollins told

JD(ATL)—24—02
- 5 -
him to watch what he said and to watch his back because they (management) knew what
was going on in reference to the Union campaign.

On April 30, Bailey and supervisor Parkko were discussing the possibility of a
strike and Parkko asked him if he would cross the picket line if the Union called for a
strike. Bailey told Parkko he would not cross the picket line and that he would not “scab”
(cross the picket line and work during a strike).

Current employee Benjamin Mercer testified concerning the Union campaign in
April 2002. Mercer is a resin tech who works in the resin room in building 1. Mercer
mixes various resin formulas used for a number of machines including the Kenworth line
in building 3. He testified that in April 2002, he had a conversation with leadman Kevin
Lyles who had just returned from a meeting of management. Lyles told him that the
leadmen were instructed to go to the work areas and see and hear what was going on and
to report it back to the management team. Lyles told him that the management said at the
meeting that it could take away the employees’ benefits and wages and close the
operation down and take it back to the Company’s home office in San Jose, California.
Lyles told him that Vice President Roger Bass made this statement at the meeting.
Shortly thereafter he saw leadman Tyrone Chapman in the resin room. Chapman also
said that the leadmen and supervisors were told to go out into the work areas, to keep
their eyes and ears open and to report back anything they heard about the Union.
Chapman also told him that Vice President Bass had said that the operation would be
closed down and taken back to San Jose, California. Mercer testified that he had several
conversations with Lyles in the work area over the next couple of days during which
Lyles repeated again the instructions given to the leadmen and supervisors to listen and
report back anything they heard about the Union and the threat to close down the
operation and take it back to San Jose, California, if the Union came in. Lyles and
Chapman both denied having made these statements to Mercer. Vice President Roger
Bass who remains an officer employed by the Company was not called to testify. I credit
Mercer, a current employee whose testimony was straight forward and candid.

As set out above, in November 2001 as a result of his dissatisfaction with the
quality of the resin and spills of the resin that had occurred when performed by a resin
tech in building 2, Birmingham Operations Manager, Louis (Pete) Herndon, determined
that it would be preferable for the mixing of the resin to be performed by someone who
was familiar with the operation of the Kenworth line in building 3. He and supervisor
Parkko met with Bailey and asked him to perform the resin mixing for the Kenworth line
in addition to his regular job of industrial helper. Bailey agreed and was given 50 cents
per hour raise as a result. The mixing was to take place in the resin mixing area in
building 2 and to be transported in pressure pots to the Kenworth line in Building 3. The
WO mixture is only one of over one hundred different mixtures performed by the resin
techs for other operations. At that time in November 2001, the Kenworth line was only
run once every week and only a limited number of blanks were produced. Bailey
performed the resin mixing for the Kenworth line without incident and to the satisfaction
of Herndon and Parkko. However the volume of the resin mixing duties gradually
increased as a result of increased production of the blanks on the Kenworth line with a

JD(ATL)—24—02
- 6 -
correspondingly greater need for resin. Bailey became concerned about the increased
workload that he would be unable to do both his industrial helper job, particularly on the
Kenworth line and the resin mixing. However, Herndon and Parkko testified that Bailey
had sufficient time to do both and that two persons watching the Kenworth line including
Parkko and Guy who operated the line were sufficient for the safe operation of the
Kenworth line. Bailey testified the mixing of resin takes about an hour to an hour and a
half including mixing time and the preparation time for mixing the resin. Herndon
testified the mixing of resin takes only a half hour to an hour. I credit Bailey.

Bailey testified that on April 30, 2002, a Tuesday, in anticipation of the next day
May 1, a Wednesday being a run day for the Kenworth line he asked supervisor Parkko if
he would take the resin sheet to building 2 to make sure that resin tech Terrance Keggins
would get the resin sheet. Typically on the day before a run day Bailey would get the
resin sheet from Parkko and take it to the Resin Room. The resin techs would make one
batch on first shift, one on second shift and one on third shift so on run day there would
be three batches already made. Parkko agreed. At that time Parkko and Bailey were
discussing what would happen if the Union called a strike. Parkko asked Bailey if he
would cross the picket line and come in and work if they called a strike. Prior to that he
had never disclosed to Parkko what he would do if the Union called a strike and he had
never told Parkko that he had signed a Union card. Bailey then told Parkko that he would
not cross the picket line and wouldn’t “scab” (work for the employer in the event of a
strike). They discussed the Union all the way to the Resin Room during which time
Parkko told him the Union only needed members because of plant closures. Bailey told
Parkko that for every negative comment about the Union or positive comment about the
Company, Parkko might make, he could make a positive or negative comment. Bailey
told Parkko that he was concerned that Keggins would not make the resin and told
Parkko that Keggins had failed to make the resin before and that when he (Bailey) came
in, there was no resin. Parkko said he would hand the resin sheet to Keggins. Parkko did
so and told Keggins to make one batch now and have the second and third shift make a
batch so there would be three batches ready in the morning when Bailey came to set up
for the Kenworth run. Bailey came in early the next day (May 1, 2002) between 3:30 and
4:00 a.m. His usual starting time was 7:30 a.m. but on run days he would come in at 5:30
to 6:30 a.m. to help set up for an hour and a half to two hours. When he arrived at
building 3 on May 1st, he turned on the lights, the overhead vacuum system, the air
system and the heaters in the die. He also turned on the gluer and started the pot heating
up. All of these tasks took about a half hour to an hour. He then went to building 2 to get
the resin and found there was no resin made. He then went back to finishing the set up.
He did not start making resin because there was no resin sheet. He waited for Parkko to
arrive and Parkko asked him to start mixing the resin. Parkko printed off another resin
sheet so he could start mixing the resin and told him that he would speak to Keggins later
to find out why the resin had not been made. Keggins arrived at 7:30 a.m. and Bailey
asked him why he had not made the resin. Keggins who is black told Bailey who is
white, “he wasn’t helping no white mother fucker.” Bailey then went back to Parkko and
told him what Keggins had said. Parkko said he would go over and take care of it and
Parkko and Bailey both went back to building 2. Keggins told Parkko he was not going
to make the resin as he did not have to do so. Parkko then told Bailey to mix the resin

JD(ATL)—24—02
- 7 -
and Bailey told Parkko he would like to speak to Human Resources Manager Herschel
Beahme and Vice President Roger Bass when they came in and Parkko told him he could
do so. Bailey then commenced to mix the resin. He had to get the drums of resin down
as they were stacked on a pallet of four. Keggins used a forklift and put a number of
drums in front of the scale where Bailey was working on the formula for the resin and
then took the keys to the forklift. Notwithstanding this obstacle Bailey was able to finish
off the batch. He then got Parkko to show him what Keggins had done. A short time
later Keggins came back with the forklift keys and Bailey was able to move the drums
out of the way. He then met with Beahme and Bass and told them he “could” not do both
jobs, the resin tech job and his industrial helper job and told them he was tired of being
“cussed” and recounted to them what Keggins had said. They told him they would look
into this and have a solution by the end of the day. Bailey mixed all of the resin required
for the Kenworth Line that day. He completed the resin sheets that day and initialed the
batches he had completed. He was not able to be present for much of the operation of the
Kenworth Line as he spent most of the day mixing the resin. Later in the afternoon of
May 1st, he saw a copy of an E-mail from Robert Rollins to Tracy Patigayon with a copy
sent to Debra Hicks regarding “Resin for building 3”. It stated “Starting Tues. next week
we’ll need to start making resin in building 1. The workload in building 2 and Kenworth
is just too much for these guys’. Debra – on Monday can you please see to it that one
pallet of asp 900 p is put into the rack outside of resin room 1 as well as 7 drums of Dow
441-400 resin.”

Bailey had a discussion with Parkko while he (Bailey) had a copy of the E-mail.
Parkko told him they were calling in Benny Mercer early to mix the resin for the 7th
which was the next day for which the Kenworth Line was scheduled to run. Bailey
worked on May 7th, but was not asked to mix any resin that day and did not do so.
Mercer mixed the resin for that day in the building 1 resin room. Bailey had a busy day
on the 7th transporting pots from the resin room in building 1 to building 3 and assisting
in the operation of the Kenworth Line. At the end of the run Parkko told Bailey he was
taking him into Herndon’s office. Up until that time Parkko had not given Bailey any
indication that there was any problem with his work. Nor had Parkko asked Bailey to do
anything he could not do. Nor had Bailey indicated that there was any problem with his
job.

Bailey testified he did not tell Beahme and Bass in his meeting with them on May
1st, that there were any duties he “would” not perform when directed. He told them he
“could” not do both the resin tech and the industrial helper duties. He “could” not be in
the resin room making resin all day and be in building 3 learning the industrial operator
duties as he still had to learn how to run the machine and the CNC.

When Parkko called Bailey into Herndon’s office on May 7th, he was given a
written warning and 3 day suspension on a two page document for “Insubordination,
failure to comply with instructions and/or failure to perform job description”. The
warning stated, “On 5/1/02, William confronted Roger Bass, and Hersch Beahme, and
informed them that from today forward he was not going to mix resin, even if it meant
being terminated.” Bailey was told to return on May 10th, which he did and at that time

JD(ATL)—24—02
- 8 -
was given a job description which stated that he was “2. Responsible for mixing all resins
as directed and required.” This job specification was designed to replace an earlier
addendum dated 11/16/01 to a prior memo from Herndon on 2/15/01. The addendum of
11/16/01, was signed by Bailey agreeing to it and specifically states “3. You must learn
as soon as possible the resin mixing procedure for the CRTM unit and be fully versed in
the proper procedures for accomplishing this requirement.” Bailey contended at the
hearing that he was originally only to learn the resin mixing to assist in it but was not to
do the bulk of the resin mixing, for which he was paid an additional 50 cents per hour.
When Bailey returned from the suspension on the 10th, he was presented with the above
described job specification and refused to sign it unless the resin mixing duty was
deleted. He was sent home on that Friday, and told to return on the following Monday,
May 13, to think it over for the weekend according to the testimony of Herndon. When
he returned on May 13th, he was terminated for failure to do his job.

At a related unemployment compensation hearing concerning Bailey’s
unemployment benefits, Hershel Beahme represented the Company at that hearing and
also testified that he had not heard Bailey state that he “would” not perform the resin
mixing job. Neither Beahme who is no longer employed by the Company nor Vice
President Bass who remains employed by the Respondent were called to testify and
Bailey’s testimony that he told them he “could” not do both jobs remains unrebutted by
the only two other participants in that meeting. I also credit Bailey’s testimony that he
did not tell Parkko that he “would” not mix the resin.

Analysis

I credit the testimony of Mercer and Bailey concerning the threats which were
repeated by Respondent’s supervisors and leadmen of plant closure and loss of benefits
and wages.

I credit Bailey’s testimony concerning the solicitation of Parkko to Bailey of his
signing a withdrawal form to revoke his union authorization clause. I credit Bailey’s
testimony that Parkko asked him whether he would cross a picket line and the threat of
plant closure and firing of employees and the threat of the loss of the annual wage
increase if the Union were successful in its organizational campaign. I find that each of
these statements would have been found to be violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, if
they had not been deleted from the complaint. However, they establish the Respondent’s
animus against the Union.

I find that the General Counsel has established a prima facie case of a violation of
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by the written warning, change in job description and
suspension and discharge of Bailey because of his Union and concerted activities. Under
Wright Line, a Division of Wright Line, Inc., 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899
(1st Cir. 1981), cert denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), the General Counsel has the initial
burden to establish that:

1. the employees engaged in protected concerted activities

JD(ATL)—24—02
- 9 -
2. the Respondent had knowledge or at least suspicion of the employees’
protected activities
3. the employer took adverse action against the employees
4. a nexus or link between the protected concerted activities and the
adverse action, underlying motive.

Once these four elements have been established, the burden shifts to the Respondent to
prove, by a preponderance of the evidence that it took the adverse action for a legitimate
non-discriminatory business reason.

I credit the testimony of Bailey that he signed a Union card and told Parkko that
he would not cross a picket line to “scab” for the Company in the event of a strike. He
clearly engaged in union concerted activities by the signing of the Union card and by
speaking in favor of the Union to Parkko. I find his comments to Parkko and Rollins in
support of the Union manifested to them his support for the Union and the knowledge of
his Union sympathies gained by these supervisors is imputed to the Company. The
Company’s antiunion animus is evidenced by the conduct of its supervisors set out above.
The Company took adverse actions against Bailey by its issuance of the warning,
suspension, revised job description and discharge of Bailey while utilizing the comments
by Bailey that he could not do both the resin job and the industrial helper job as a reason
to support these actions. I credit Bailey that he did not refuse to do both jobs but rather
told management that he “could” not do both jobs. I find the insistence by Herndon that
Bailey sign a revised job specification was intended to intimidate Bailey after having
wrongfully suspended him for his unrebutted candid comments to Bass and Beahme
neither of whom were called to testify. Bailey was presented with a Hobson’s choice by
agreeing to sign the job description under duress which he did not believe he could
perform or refusing to sign it in view of his suspension for unlawful reasons. Opelika
Welding, 305 NLRB 561. I find that the actions taken against Bailey were in direct
retaliation for Bailey’s support of the Union and ignored the fact that the resin mixing
task had been reassigned to Mercer which had eliminated the problem of Bailey’s being
overburdened as a result of the increase in the production of the Kenworth line and the
resulting additional need for resin. I credit Mercer’s unrebutted testimony at the hearing
that he has since this incident performed the mixing of the resin for the Kenworth line. I
thus find that the General Counsel has established a prima facie case that the adverse
actions taken against Bailey were motivated by Respondent’s antiunion animus. I find
the Respondent has failed to rebut the prima facie case by the preponderance of the
evidence as it has failed to establish that it would have taken these actions against Bailey
in the absence of the unlawful motivation.

Conclusions of Law

1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.

2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.

JD(ATL)—24—02
- 10 -

3. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by the issuance
of the written warning and the change in job description and the suspension and discharge
of employee William Bailey.

4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.

The Remedy

Having found the Respondent has engaged in the above violations of the Act, it
shall be recommended that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative actions designed to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act and post
the appropriate notices. It is recommended that Respondent offer immediate
reinstatement to employee William Bailey who was unlawfully suspended and
discharged. He shall be reinstated to his prior position or to a substantially equivalent
one if his prior position no longer exists. He shall be made whole for all loss of backpay
and benefits sustained by him as a result of Respondent’s unfair labor practices. These
amounts shall be computed in the manner prescribed in F.W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB
289 (1950), with interest as computed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB
1173 (1987) at the “short term Federal rate” for the underpayment of taxes as set out in
the 1986 amendment to 26 U.S.C. Section 6621.

On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue
the following recommended
2
:

ORDER

The Respondent, Glasforms Inc., its officers, agents, successors and assigns shall:

1. Cease and desist from:

(a) Issuing written warnings and changing its employees’ job
descriptions and suspending and discharging its employees because of their support for
the Union.

(b) Respondent shall not in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain or coerce its employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act.

2. Take the following affirmative actions necessary to effectuate the policies
of the Act.

2 If no exceptions are filed as provided by §102.46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in §102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.

JD(ATL)—24—02
- 11 -

(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer full reinstatement
to William Bailey without prejudice to his seniority or any other rights or privileges
previously enjoyed.

(b) Make William Bailey whole for any loss of earnings and benefits
suffered as the result of the unlawful discrimination against him in the manner set forth in
“The Remedy” section of this Decision.

(c) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from its files
all references to the change in job description and to the unlawful written warning and
suspension and discharge of William Bailey and within 3 days notify him in writing that
this has been done and that these unlawful actions will not be used against him in any
way.

(d) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security
payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records,
including an electronic copy of the records if stored in electronic form, necessary to
analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.

(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post copies of the
attached notice marked “Appendix
3
.” Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 10, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material. In the event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has
gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent
shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees
and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since March, 2002.

3 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of the 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 JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD.”

JD(ATL)—24—02
- 12 -

(f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional
Director a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region
attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.

Dated at Washington DC

________________________________
Lawrence W. Cullen
Administrative Law Judge

JD(ATL)—24—02
- 13 -
APPENDIX

NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES

Posted by the Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal
labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice.

FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO

Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities

WE WILL NOT issue written warnings and change your job description and suspend or
discharge you because of your engagement in union activities or your support for a union.

WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.

WE WILL offer employee William Bailey full and immediate reinstatement to his
former job or if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed.

WE WILL make employee William Bailey whole for wages and benefits lost as a result
of our unlawful suspension and discharge of him, with interest.

WE WILL remove from our files all references to the unlawful written warnings, change
in job description, suspension and discharge of William Bailey and will inform him in
writing that we have done so and that we will not use the unlawful actions against him in
any way.

GLASFORMS, INC.
(Employer)

Dated: By:
(Representative) (Title)

The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in
1935 to enforce the National Labor Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections
to determine whether employees want union representation and it investigates and

JD(ATL)—24—02
- 14 -
remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about
your rights under the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may
speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s Regional Office set forth below.
You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.

233 Peachtree Street NE, Harris Tower, Suite 1000, Atlanta, GA 30303-1531
(404) 331-2896, Hours: 8 a.m. To 4:30 p.m.

THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE.
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM
THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR
COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS
NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE
ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (404) 331-2877.