Industrial Platers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 4, 1965

154 N.L.R.B. 276 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
or distributing literature on behalf of International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT promise, grant, or hold out to any employee any wage increase
or other benefit or thing of value to induce him or any other employee to refrain
from membership, affiliation, sympathy, support, assistance, or activity in or for
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT directly or indirectly threaten any employee with discharge, loss
of employment, layoff, loss of benefit or other thing of value, or any discrimi-
natory reprisal or retaliation or act, because of membership, affiliation, sympathy,
support, assistance, or activity in or for International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization, or in case of union representation of our employees.
WE WILL NOT directly or indirectly threaten or indicate that we will refuse
or fail to bargain in good faith with International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any
other duly designated collective-bargaining representative of our employees; nor
that we will not permit or agree under any circumstances to a union shop; nor
that we will engage in long drawn-out negotiations with a union without good-
faith intention to attempt to arrive at agreement, but with the advance intention
of arriving at a breakdown in negotiations.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in and lawful activities on behalf of
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or other labor organization of our employees,
by discharging, laying off, suspending, or failing or refusing to reinstate or
rehire, any employee, or threatening to do so, or by otherwise discriminating or
threatening to discriminate against any employee in regard to hire or tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employ-
ees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed to them by Congress, to self-
organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist any labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively thiough representatives of their own choosing, to
engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from engaging in any or all such activities,
except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of
1959.
THE ROSE COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-If any of the above employees is presently serving in the Armed Forces of
the United States we shall notify him of his right to full reinstatement upon application
after discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the Selective Service Act
and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1949 as amended.
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
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Second
Floor, Commerce Building, 744 North Fourth Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Tele-
phone No. 272-8600, Extension 3860.
Industrial Platers , Inc. and District 52, of the International
Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO. Case No. 9-CA-3389.
August 4,1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 13, 1965, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, findings that the Respondent
154 NLRB No. 21.
INDUSTRIAL PLATERS, INC. 277
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action , as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Exam-
iner's Decision, a brief in support thereof, and a document entitled
"Memorandum."
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and Zagoria].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.' The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the
entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
Respondent, Industrial Platers, Inc., Columbus, Ohio, its officers,
agent, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as so modified :
1. Add the following as paragraph 2(b), the present paragraph
2(b) and those subsequent thereto being consecutively relettered:
"(b) Notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement
upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended,
after discharge from the Armed Forces."
2. Add the following immediately below the signature line at the
bottom of the Appendix attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision:
NoTs.-Notify the above-named employees if presently serving
in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full
reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective
Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act
of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
' The Respondent contends in its Memorandum that it was prejudiced by the Trial
Examiner 's admission of evidence presented by the General Counsel concerning settle-
ment attempts in this case , and moves for a new hearing on this ground . We find that
the admission of such evidence was not, under all the circumstances of the case , prejudicial
error The motion for a new hearing is therefore hereby denied.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding , brought under Section 10 (b) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended ( 61 Stat. 136), was heard before Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon
278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at Columbus , Ohio, on March 29, 1965, pursuant to due notice with all parties rep-
resented . The complaint , issued on January 20 , 1965, and based upon charges filed
November 19, 1964, was issued by the Regional Director for Region 9 (Cincin-
nati, Ohio ), on behalf of the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board ( herein the General Counsel and the Board ). It alleged that Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices by certain specified acts of
interference , restraint , and coercion involving the employees ' rights under the Act
and by discriminatorily terminating the employment of Lawrence Frazier, Richard
Jordan, Ronnie Jordan, Jesse Maynard , and Jack Thomas because of their activities
on behalf of and sympathy for the Union and for the purposes of discouraging mem-
bership in the Union thus violating Section 8 ( a)(1) and ( 3) of the Act.
In its duly filed answer Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor
practices.
Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the witnesses , I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. RESPONDENT 'S BUSINESS
At all times material herein Industrial Platers, Inc., herein called Respondent, has
been an Ohio corporation engaged at Columbus, Ohio, in the business of plating
metal parts and products . During the year preceding the issuance of the complaint,
which is a representative period, Respondent performed services valued in excess of
$50,000, for nonretail enterprises located in the State of Ohio, each of which, during
the same period , had a direct outflow of their products in interstate commerce, val-
ued in excess of $50,000, which were sold and shipped directly by each of them to
points outside the State of Ohio At all times material Respondent has been an
employer as defined in Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in commerce and in opera.
tions affecting commerce as defined in Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
At all times material herein District 52, International Association of Machinists,
AFL-CIO, has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Union Activity
Sometime in the spring of 1964 Jesse Maynard , who was then employed by
Respondent as a plater helper, contacted the Union about organizing Respondent's
employees . Some 7 months later ( about the first of October ) Maynard, together
with three more of Respondent 's employees ( Richard Jordan, Ronnie Jordan, and
Lawrence Frazier ) went to the union office and obtained authorization cards which
Maynard began passing out to Respondent 's employees away from Respondent's
premises . There was some union talk around the plant and Maynard "got a few of
the boys to sign cards." Among those who signed were Frazier, the two Jordans,
and Jack Thomas. These four along with Maynard were later terminated by
Respondent and are the alleged discriminatees herein.
The Terminations
Lawrence Frazier testified as follows : When he went to punch in at 3:20 p.m. on
November 4, 1964, for the second shift, his card was missing. He asked the day
foreman where it was and was told that Shop Foreman Dallas Burton had it. At
this point Burton saw him and told him that he wanted to see Frazier in the office.
In the office he found Richard and Ronnie Jordan . Frazier asked Burton what was
wrong. Burton said that he had "heard there was a lot of union talk going around
the shop" and asked if Frazier knew anything about it. Frazier said he did not and
Burton said that he had gotten "information that morning from a good source" that
Frazier did know something about it. Burton said that he had a list which he had
gotten from a union representative that morning and that Frazier 's name was third
on the list . Burton said that he was going to let Frazier go saying , " if you want a
union job, I will let you go so you can have one. " He then pointed to the Jordans
and added , "I am going to let you go , too." Frazier said that if he was fired he
should get his check . Burton said , "well, let's don 't call it fired, just say you are
INDUSTRIAL PLATERS, INC. 279
laid off." According to Frazier's further testimony Burton was "real mad" at this
time and said that he "was going to cut off the third shift so he could keep an eye
on the men, keep the union talk from going around the shop."
Frazier was not paid at. the time but went back for his check the following
Friday.' There he "talked for quite a while" with Burton. He told Burton that he
had "got the wrong man," that he had not been "talking the Union around there,"
and didn't know anything about it, and asked to get his job back. Burton told him
to come in the following day and talk to Respondent's president, Harold Edelstein.
The next day in his interview with Edelstein the latter asked him "what the score
was, why [he] got laid off." Frazier replied, "I don't know, just what Dallas said,
I was talking union around the shop there ...." Frazier explained to Edelstein that
he had not talked about the Union around the shop and furthermore that he knew
nothing about it. Edelstein said that all he knew about the matter was what Burton
had told him. Sometime during the interview Burton came in and apparently joined
in the conversation. In any event he told Frazier either to come in or call in the
following Wednesday.
Frazier went in the following Wednesday and Burton told him to come to work
the following day. So Frazier went back to work the next day as instructed. There-
after he worked 70 to 80 hours a week 7 days a week and his first day off after
being reinstated was Thanksgiving Day. The day before he had been discharged he
had worked a double shift from 3:30 in the afternoon to 7 o'clock the following
morning. He also had worked overtime every day during the previous week.
According to his further testimony Burton made no mention at the time of his
discharge about a lack of work. Frazier also testified that he had never been laid off
before. During the week between his layoff and the time that he was reinstated
according to Frazier's further testimony, Respondent hired four or five new employ-
ees. Frazier did not know their names but identified a couple of them by their given
names or nicknames and described what duties they had been assigned to.
After his reinstatement Frazier found a more desirable job and quit Respondent's
employment. Frazier testified that the day before he quit he had a conversation with
Edelstein who apparently had just received a copy of the unfair labor practice
charges. Edelstein asked Frazier if he knew anything about them and Frazier
replied that he did not. Edelstein told Frazier that in the event he was questioned
about the matter to tell the truth. He also told Frazier that he did not think that
Burton had laid him off on account of the Union. Frazier said that he did not know
why Burton had laid him off but that Burton had told him it was because of the
Union. It further appears that at no time during his employment with Respondent
other than the occasion at issue had there ever been a layoff. It also appears that
at the time of the layoff the third shift had only been in existence for "a week or so."
Ronnie Jordan testified as follows: When he went to punch in on the second shift
his card was not at the clock either. At this point he heard Burton order Frazier
to come into the office with him. Jordan and his brother Richard followed Frazier
into the office As to what happened in the office, Jordan testified:
Well, Dallas asked Larry did he know anything about the Union. He said there
had been talk about it around the shop and he wanted to know who the head
guy that started the talk about the Union was, and Larry said he didn't know,
and he said, "I know you do, because I got my information from a good source,"
and he said, "so I am going to let you guys go." He pointed to me and Larry
and Richard, and he said also Jesse Maynard, later on.
. he said that he got his information from our union representative. He had
been in that morning and he had the list and it had our names on it ... and he
said, "so if you guys want a job, I am going to let you get you a job where there
is a union."
The foregoing testimony was substantially corroborated by Richard Jordan.
Jesse Maynard testified that having heard from the Jordans of their terminations
he went to the plant at 6 p.m. (his shift did not start until 11:30 p.m.) to talk to
Burton. There Burton told him that he had to let five men go and that he was one
of them. Maynard asked for an explanation. Burton replied, "well, there's been
too much union talk going on [in] the second and third shift and I am going to get
rid ofit...."
1 F, razier's check stub, as did those of the others terminated on this occasion, had the
word "Final" on it.
280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Jack Thomas, the other alleged 8(3), testified as follows: On November 4 about
15 minutes before the end of his shift he had gone over to the water cooler to get a
drink of water. Burton came by and Thomas said to him, "I see you had a fist full
of timecards." Burton's reply was, "As of 3.30 you are laid off." When Thomas
asked why, Burton "just turned around as he walked, and he says, `too much bitch-
ing,' and kept going." The General Counsel then asked if Burton had said anything
about a lack of work. Thomas answered, "Yes, sir, I believe he did. He said-if
I am not mistaken-he said, before he said bitching, he said lack of work and too
much bitching or something to the effect." Previously that day Thomas had had a
conversation with his foreman, Danny White, relative to the Union. White told
Thomas and another employee, Sloan, that he had "heard that the guys had got a
list of names" and that five or six of the employees were "going to leave there."
Thomas went back to work about a month later having been recalled by Respondent.
He testified that at that time there were three or four new employees on the day
shift and that there were some new ones on the night shift too. He also testified
that after he went back to work he worked some overtime. Notwithstanding that
there had been some fluctuations in the amount of work to be done he had never
previously been laid off.
On December 3, 1964, Respondent wrote the four alleged discriminatees, who
were still off, as follows:
Due to the increase in the work load we request your immediate return to
your job.
Please let us hear from you.
The testimony of Harold Edelstein, Respondent's president, was as follows-
Respondent's normal complement of employees is about 55 which was approximately
the number employed at the time of the hearing herein. Respondent's business
fluctuates and Respondent had in the past instituted general layoffs, the last ones
being in 1958 and at the end of 1962 2
According to Edelstein Respondent has some operations that involve 24-hour atten-
tion which results in overtime for those working on them even though work might
be scarce in other departments. In this connection he maintained that it is not good
policy to give overtime to one "not particularly educated in that job."
Edelstein testified that the Union played no part in his decision on the termina-
tions and that indeed he did not know that the people involved were interested, or
had played any part, in the Union. The decision on the terminations in question
was made by Edelstein on October 29 As of that date, Respondent had a tube job
"being run in the still line that was coming close to the end of the demand for plat-
ing." There were approximately 2,000 tubes left to run when the layoff was decided
upon. At an average of about 400 a day the tube job should have run out at the
time the terminations occurred.
When asked on cross-examination whether Burton had anything to do with the
decision as to who was to be laid off Edelstein answered, "only with respect to the
men's work and the jobs they were doing." When the question was repeated to
him he then answered, "No, sir, not specifically. He and I always have conversa-
tions before I finally give him the word. The conversation, in this particular case,
involved my telling him who [was] to be laid off ...."
On direct examination Edelstein explained his reasons for picking the people who
were terminated as follows:
Lawrence Frazier
Yes, sir. Mr. Frazier was temporarily assigned to the barrel zinc department.
He was working-pulling barrels He was-well, do you want me to explain
about the fact that his regular work was in the phosphate line? ... because of
the fact that his regular work was on the phosphate line, I decided that in order
to consolidate the second and third shifts into the second shift only on the
barrel zinc department, that he and one other man had to go. They were laid
off until work picked up, and, therefore, we could call back just as soon as we
could get work for the phosphate department. Frazier could then go back to
work.
Jesse Maynard
He was laid off because he was working again in the barrel zinc department
where we had two men on each of the second and third tricks, and we had to
consolidate back down to the second shift, and, therefore, Jesse, who was spin
2 Edelstein testified in substance that its volume of employment rises and falls with
the ups and downs of the business cycles
INDUSTRIAL PLATERS, INC. 281
drying on the third shift, would be the one man and Lawrence Frazier, who
was pulling on the second shift, should be the two to go, and the other two, one
who was pulling and one was spin drying, were to continue on the second shift.
Ronald Jordan
He and his brother [Richard Jordan] were hired approximately at the same
time for the specific purpose of running the tube job; when the tube job ran out,
as it was, they had to go. From the time I made the decision on Thursday til
the time they were laid off on Wednesday the tube job should have completely
been gone.
Jack Thomas
Well, Jack had had words with Danny White, who is supervisor or the pusher
in the department, approximately 3 or 4 weeks before the layoff. I had actu-
ally tried to get Danny and Jack to work together, and I had made the state-
ment to Jack specifically, "Jack, you are going to be forcing me to make a deci-
sion. I am going to have to lay off either Danny or Jack, and you know I will
have to pick Jack because Danny is the leadman in the department or the
pusher, and just am asking you to please cooperate or else I will be forced to
lay you off." 3
As for his conversation with Frazier when the latter came in to talk to him after
he had been laid off, Edelstein testified as follows:
Well, Mr. Frazier came in to talk to me, and I had heard there was a lot of
words and a big commotion going on, so I said, "Buck, what is all the commo-
tion about? I heard a lot of commotion going on about here. What is the
score?" So he proceeded to tell me that there was some talk of a union. I said
"I don't know what that talk was or what it was meant to be, but as far as I am
concerned it has no bearing on your employment here." And then he wanted
to know when he was going to be called back to work if he were to be called
back to work, and I said, "I think you can probably come back to work Thurs-
day if we get enough phosphate for you to run." And this is approximately
what occurred.
Edelstein went on to testify that he recalled Frazier first. The second whom he
recalled was Nick Van Gellow.4 Then he hired a man to work in the chrome
department after which he "hired others who specifically could be trained in their
new department, in these various jobs." Edelstein at first denied discussing the
Union with Burton. When asked again if he had ever discussed the Union with him,
Edelstein testified:
I have on occasion engaged in very light talk and I am talking about since 1953-
I most certainly would have had to discuss some union with somebody. And
Burton, as well as many others, have discussed union on a very light basis, and
should an opinion from me that I am absolutely neutral and will try to remain
neutral as long as I am in business.
When asked if by the above answer he meant to imply that he had discussed unions
generally he replied, "yes, sir." Then when asked if he discussed "this specific
union" he replied, "absolutely not."
Shop Foreman Burton denied in his testimony telling any of the employees that
the termination had anything to do with the Union. However with respect to Law-
rence Frazier, Burton testified as follows:
Well, as I was walking up to the building, he was standing beside the coffee
machine, so I asked him to come in my office a minute, so we went in the office,
and we got in the office, and I told him he was laid off. He sat down, and I
S There was a sixth man laid off at the same time as those named in the complaint.
He was Nick Van Gellow. As to him Edelstein testified that "he was uncooperative and
would not do his share of the work on the trick that he was working on . . . he was laid
off because the work had slowed down in that department as well and he was the one
most logical to be laid off "
& Van Gellow was called back within 2 weeks of the November 3 termination notwith-
standing that Edelstein testified that "he just wasn't a good employee." Edelstein ex-
plained that he was being given another chance. Van Gellow later fell asleep on the job
and was discharged again.
282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
asked him if he had heard any union talk, and he said , "no." And I said , "well,
I think you have." And then he rephrased it and said, "yes, I have. I think
everybody in the building has heard about it."
Then, he asked me, he said, "well, if I am fired, can I get my check?" And I
said, "you are not fired; you are laid off." And when I got up to turn around
to go out the door, the two Jordan boys were standing in the door , and I said,
"both of you are laid off, too."
Burton testified that Edelstein informed him of the layoff about a week before it
occurred but that he did not consult with Burton about those to be laid off nor did
he know how Edelstein made the determination to lay off the ones he did. He fur-
ther testified that no mention was made of the Union by Edelstein. Burton also
testified that he raised the question of the Union with Frazier because he "was just
curious as to how much of it was going on . . ." because he "had heard a lot of talk
about it ...... When asked if at the time of talking to Frazier and the two Jordans
he was angry, he answered "I don't believe so." When the question was repeated
he answered "I don't remember but I don't think I was angry.' It also appears from
Burton's testimony that notwithstanding that Edelstein did not consult with him
about the layoffs, Edelstein had in the past consulted with him about employees and
their performance. Burton also testified (contrary to Edelstein's testimony) that he
had discussed with Edelstein the rumors he had heard about this particular Union.
Burton's denial that he exhibited an antiunion motive to the employees in making
the terminations and the purpose to eliminate union discussion among them is not
credited . His anger at the time 5 is indicative of an emotion hardly to be equated
with an uncontroversial economic layoff. Furthermore , his admitted interrogation
of Frazier about the Union and the exception he took to Frazier's plea of ignorance
thereon is inconsistent with Respondent 's contention here and with the rest of Burton's
version of the matter.
Conclusions
The foregoing evidence in my opinion clearly shows that Respondent violated the
Act substantially as alleged in the complaint.
Respondent's contention that the terminations were merely layoffs required by
and the result of slack work is refuted by, among other things, the fact that Respond-
ent hired several people in the short interim between the "layoffs" and Frazier's
return to works This refutation is materially strengthened by Edelstein's own testi-
mony that the new hires "could be trained" and the clear implication that they were
thus inexperienced.
Even in the absence of the foregoing credibility resolution, on the record herein
I believe that the inference is fully justified that Edelstein was aware of the union
activity or sympathy of the employees in question or at least suspected them. I so
find. I further find, contrary to Respondent's testimony, that the matter of the
terminations was discussed by Burton and Edelstein and that antiunion considera-
tions motivated them.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The unfair labor practices of the Respondent set forth above, occurring in connec-
tion with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the several
States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices violative
of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend below that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
c Given two opportunities to disavow it, he refused I credit the General Counsel's
witnesses in this connection
6 Frazier 's testimony to this effect is essentially undenied . To the extent that Edel-
stein's testimony on the new hires can be interpreted as a denial of Frazier 's I do not
credit it.
INDUSTRIAL PLATERS, INC. 283
Having found that Respondent discriminated against various employees by dis-
charging them, I will recommend that the Respondent make each whole for any loss
of earnings he may have suffered because of the discrimination against him by pay-
ment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount of wages he would have earned
from the date of the discrimination to the date of the offer of reinstatement together
with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum, and that the loss of pay
and interest be computed in accordance with the formula and method prescribed by
the Board in F W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heat-
ing Co., 138 NLRB 716, to which the parties hereto are expressly referred.
The unfair labor practices committed by Respondent strike at the heart of the
rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 of the Act.7 The inference is warranted
that Respondent maintains an attitude of opposition to the purpose of the Act with
respect to the protection of employee rights in general. It will, accordingly, be
recommended that Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.8
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this
proceeding, I make the following conclusions of law.
1. Industrial Platers, Inc., is, and has been at all material times, an employer
within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
2. District 52, of the International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, is, and
has been at all material times, a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
3. By discriminating against its employees Lawrence Frazier, Richard Jordan,
Ronnie Jordan, Jesse Maynard, and Jack Thomas as found above, the Respondent
has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, as found above, Respondent has
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon
the entire record in this proceeding, I recommend that the Respondent, Industrial
Platers, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership of any of its employees in District 52, of the Inter-
national Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization
of its employees by discharging, or in any other manner discriminating against, any
individual in regard to his hire, tenure of employment, or any term or condition of
employment, except as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
(b) Threatening discharge or other reprisals because of the employees' union
activities or sympathies or to prevent union discussion.
(c) Interrogating employees concerning their union membership, activities, or
sympathies, in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act, except to the
extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a
labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended by the Labor-Management Reporting
and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act.
(a) Make the above-named employees whole for any loss of pay they may have
suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimination against them, together with inter-
est at the rate of 6 percent per annum, in the manner set forth in the section entitled
"The Remedy."
7 N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F. 2d 532 (C A. 4).
8 May Department Stores Famous -Barr Company v. N L.R B., 326 U.S. 376; Bethlehem
Steel Company v. N.L.R.B., 120 F. 2d 641.
284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Preserve, and upon request, make available to the Board and its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records, and reports, and all other records necessary or useful to
determine the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order.
(c) Post at its plant in Columbus, Ohio, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 9 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 9, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted
by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for
a period of 60 consecutive days thereof, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(d) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of
the receipt of this Decision and Recommended Order, what steps the Respondent
has taken to comply herewitb.'°
5If this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and
Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner"
in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a decree of
a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order."
10 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activities on behalf of District 52,
of the International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor
organization of our employees by discriminatorily discharging or in any other
manner discriminating against any individual in regard to his hire or tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment, except as authorized in
Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL make Lawrence Frazier, Richard Jordan, Ronnie Jordan, Jesse
Maynard, and Jack Thomas whole for any loss of earnings they may have suf-
fered as a result of our discrimination against them.
WE WILL NOT threaten discharge or other reprisals because of our employees'
union activities or sympathies or to prevent union discussion by them.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union membership,
activities, or sympathies, in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or
coercion within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to
engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities
except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized
in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or
remaining , members of the above-named or any other labor organization.
INDUSTRIAL PLATERS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated- ------------------ By-----------------------------------------(Representative -Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
UNITED ASSN. PIPE FITTERS LOCAL 455, ETC. 285
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Room 2023,
Federal Office Building, 550 Main Street , Cincinnati , Ohio, Telephone No. 381-2200.
United Association Pipe Fitters Local Union No . 455 and United
Association Plumbers & Gasfitters Local Union No . 34, both
affiliated with the United Association of Journeymen and Ap-
prentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the
United States and Canada, AFL-CIO,' and St. Paul Association
of Plumbing , Heating and Mechanical Contractors , Inc.,' et at.
and United Association Pipe Fitters Local Union No. 455 and
United Association Plumbers & Gasfitters Local Union No. 34,
both affiliated with the United Association of Journeymen and
Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the
United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, and Upper Midwest
Piping, Incorporated and United Association Pipe Fitters Local
Union No . 455, affiliated with the United Association of Jour-
neymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting In-
dustry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO (D. W.
Hickey Co ., Inc., and Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Com-
pany) and American Boiler Manufacturers Association 3 Cases
Nos. 18-CE-4, 18-CE-6, and 18-CC-143. August 5, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 14, 1964, Trial Examiner Reeves R. Hilton issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents,
Local Union No. 455 and the Contractors Association, its member-
contractors, and Upper Midwest Piping, Incorporated, had engaged
in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommend-
ing that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He also
found that the Respondent Unions had not engaged in certain other
alleged unfair labor practices, and recommended that the complaint
be dismissed with respect thereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel-,
the Respondent Union, and the Charging Party filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs.
The National Labor Relations Board has reviewed the rulings of the
Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error
was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has con-
sidered the entire record in these cases, including the Trial Examiner's
'Herein referred to respectively as Local Union No. 455 and Local Union No. 34, and
jointly as the Respondent Unions.
2 Herein referred to as the Contractors Association.
8 Herein referred to gas the Charging Party.
154 NLRB No. 12.