Firestone Steel Products Co.

FIRESTONE STEEL PRODUCTS CO. 549 Firestone Steel Products Company, a Division of Firestone Tire and Rubber Company and Inter- national Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of Amer- ica (UAW). Case 25-CA-9706 March 18, 1980 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND PENELLO On November 8, 1979, Administrative Law Judge Thomas E. Bracken issued the attached De- cision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Firestone Steel Products Company, a Division of Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, Henderson, Kentucky, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. The Administrative Law Judge inadvertently referred to "Walker" as "Wallace" in two instances in his Decision. We correct this error. The Administrative Law Judge credited the testimony of, inter alia, dischargee Todd and Production Foreman Townsend. There is a conflict in the testimony of these two men, however, over whether Todd request- ed to see the personnel director during the initial conversation that took place at the machines on March 3. Todd testified that he asked for a meeting with the personnel director. Townsend testified that Todd did not say anything during the conversation at the machines. The only other person present was Walker, whose testimony was discredited by the Ad- ministrative Law Judge. Although the Administrative Law Judge did not address directly this conflict in testimony, he found in the "Analysis and Conclusions" section of his Decision that "when Walker and Todd stood besides [sic) the machines, and at the locker room door, and requested to see the personnel manager or the plant manager, they were engaging in protected concerted activity." (Emphasis supplied.) We have relied on the Administrative Law Judge's conclusions as to the relevant events in adopting his findings and conclusions here. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE THOMAS E. BRACKEN, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard at Evansville, Indiana, on October 248 NLRB No. 69 30, 1978.1 The charge was filed by the Union on March 10, and the complaint was issued on April 28. The prima- ry issue is whether the Company, the Respondent, discri- minatorily discharged two union supporters, Ernest Walker, Jr., and Charles Todd, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act. Re- spondent denies the commission of any unfair labor prac- tices. Upon the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consider- ation of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Company, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION The Company, an Ohio corporation, is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of truck wheels and rims at its plant in Henderson, Kentucky, where, during the past year, a representaive period, it shipped products valued in excess of $50,000 to States other than Ken- tucky and, during the same year, it received goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 which were trans- ported to the plant, directly from States other than Ken- tucky. The Company admits and I find that it is an em- ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 111 THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background In 1974, the Respondent opened the plant to manufac- ture truck rims and wheels of various sizes. One of its earliest employees was Terry Gibson, who was hired on May 1, 1974, to serve as its personnel manager. Gibson had previously beem employed as the personnel manager of another local company, Gamco Products. Gibson hired Ernest Walker, Jr., as a machine operator 3 months later. Walker had also worked for Gamco as a machinist, and Gibson knew that he had been active in union cam- paigns at that company. In years following the opening of the Henderson plant, there were three union organizing campaigns conducted at the plant. The first was by the Aluminum Workers 2 and the IUE, the second by the Steel Workers, and the third by the UAW. James R. Wiseman, an organizer for the UAW, testi- fied credibly that in May 1977 the UAW commenced an organizing campaign at Respondent's plant. Walker was one of the initiators of the campaign and served on the in-plant organizing committee. By letter dated May 18, 1977, Wiseman had sent to Respondent a list of the names of 1023 employees as serving on this committee All dates are in 1978, unless otherwise stated. ' Walker served as an observer for this union in an election. a At the time of the hearing the Company had 560 employees. 550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD for the UAW. The names of Walker and Charles Todd, the other alleged discriminatee, appeared on this list. In July 1977, Walker was one of the 23 employees sus- pended after placing UAW stickers on their hard hats. The Company attributed the suspension to a violation of its policy not to put any type of decal on a hard hat be- cause it was unsafe. This discipline became the subject of a charge filed with the Board, which was settled with payment of moneys to the suspended individuals, includ- ing Walker, and the posting of a notice with a nonadmis- sion of liability clause. On July 28, the UAW completed its organizing campaign with a Board-conducted elec- tion, in which the Union received a majority of the votes. As of the date of this hearing the election results were being contested. As each employee is hired he receives a booklet enti- tled "Handbook for Firestone Steel Products Employ- ees." This highly professional booklet consists of 80 printed pages containing very detailed information about the Respondent's policies, rules, and procedures. On page 7 is stated its plant policy toward unionization. One paragraph thereof candidly reads: "We do not believe that union representation of our employees would be in the best interests of either the employees or the compa- ny." While the booklet has no section entitled "Griev- ances," it does have one section wherein the language and format is vaguely similar to the grievance proce- dures found in collective-bargaining agreements. This section, entitled "Let's Get It Out in the Open," allows an employee to take his complaint through a four-step procedure, in which at each step he deals with a higher- rated company official. There is no appeal beyond the plant manager. It reads as follows: If there's something about your job that's bother- ing you, "Let's Get It Out in the Open." Discuss it frankly with the people in Firestone who can and will help you "iron out" your problem. You can be sure that your complaint will handled in a "fair and square manner." There are four steps you may take. It's your right and privilege to keep right on going-"to the top," if necessary. (1) As a starter, take up the problem that's bothering you with your supervisor. He works with you each day and is personally interested in your wel- fare. He knows you and your job better than anyone else and knows how to solve your prob- lems promptly and fairly. (2) Talk your problem over with your department manager. Talk to him honestly and sincerely. He has authority to settle the problem. (3) If you want further consideration of your prob- lem, then take it to the Personnel Department. Personnel is specially trained in handling "human relations" problems and will guide and aid you. (4) As a final step, the door to the plant manager's office is open to your problem. If you have not been satisfied with the treatment of your problem up to this step, you may request that he give con- sideration to it. While Gibson testified that this section was not intend- ed as a grievance procedure, he admitted that there was no limit as to the type of problem that an employee could present under its steps, and that an employee with a dispute over a job assignment could process it through the steps set forth in the handbook. Gibson also de- scribed a review board that was instituted in January 1979. The board will hold a hearing for an employee with at least 60 days' service, who has been discharged, and review that employee's case. An employee must make the request for such a hearing in writing, and em- ployees who quit are not eligible to have a hearing. Since its institution, there have been eight cases heard by the review board, with six discharges being upheld. Only the plant manager, Ken Roman, and Gibson have the au- thority to discharge an employee. The personnel manager also testified that it was plant policy that no employee may walk off a job if he has a problem, but that he must perform the job and grieve later. It is also company policy to treat anyone who has left the plant without permission as a voluntary quit. This policy is not contained in the handbook, but is told to each new employee on his or her first day of orienta- tion. The handbook on page 52 does refer to a voluntary quit as follows: "When an employee is absent three (3) consecutive working days without an acceptable excuse, such absence shall be considered a voluntary quit." Walker had been hired as a machine operator, and worked at that classification for 1 year. He was then moved up to the classification of setup man, which paid $5.25 an hour, 50 cents per hour more than his prior classification. Setup men make sure that all machines on the line properly, change blades and other parts, and re- pairs any machines that break down. Todd also started as a machine operator in November 1974, and, 4 to 6 months later, moved up to the setup man classification. Todd wore a UAW button during the 1977 campaign, and helped to hand out handbills "up on the hill." As Organizer Wiseman admitted, Todd did not play any particular role in the union campaign, and many employ- ees were more active than he was. After the election, he again wore a union button. During the month prior to March 3, Todd had been working a 7-day week, and Walker also had been working a considerable amount of overtime. B. The Events of March 3 1. Preliminary events On the morning of March 3, Walker and Todd had been scheduled to work on their regular jobs as setup men on line 425, a line on which light truck rims are fab- ricated right from flat steel. The line is operated by 12 machine operators who work under Production Foreman Larry Ray Townsend. In addition, the line has two setup men, Walker and Todd, who take orders from the setup supervisor, Zack Womack. Between 6:30 and 6:45 a.m., Townsend and Womack attended the daily supervisors' production meeting. Their supervisor, Jim Rutledge, was also present. On the night before there had been a snow and ice storm, and the officials were particularly con- cerned about possible absenteeism, and its effect on pro- FIRESTONE STEEL PRODUCTS CO. 551 duction. Line 436 was designated as the priority line that day, and was to be manned in all events. At 7 a.m., Townsend determined that he was short two men on his line, and transferred three of his opera- tors over to line 436. About 7:05 a.m. Rutledge discussed the absenteeism situation with Production Manager Ron Terry, reporting that 11 of the 44 employees in his de- partment were absent. Following this telephone conver- sation, Rutledge then instructed Townsend and Womack to use setup employees on the production lines, so as to keep production going. Rutledge's reason for production having priority over setup work was "Production pays the bills. If we don't run rims we don't survive." 2. Subsequent events a. According to General Counsel's witnesses Walker testified that he arrived after 7 a.m., checked the burr shear, and found that its blades were dull. 4 He went back to his toolbox, where Todd walked up and in- formed him that he had changed the machine stamp. Walker then told Todd that he was going to change the blades in the burr shear. At this time, Townsend walked up and said, "Ernie, I think you're going to have to either stack rims or run a burr shear." Walker then pro- tested, stating that Womack was the supervisor of setup, and that he would have to tell "us" what to do. Townsend left and returned with Womack about 7:25 a.m. The setup supervisor then said to Walker, "Damn it to hell. Are you refusing to run the burr shear." Walker replied "No, I'm not refusing to run no burr shear." Womack then asked for Walker's and Todd's timecards, punched them out, and said, "Come on." 5 The three then walked to the locker room, where Walker and Todd changed their clothes. When the two setup men came out of the locker room, they were met by Rutledge and Womack. Rutledge then said, "Walker, get your hard hat on and your safety shoes and get your ass out there and run that machine." Walker replied by telling Rutledge that he wanted to see Gibson, the personnel manager, or Terry, the production manager. Rutledge responded by telling him four or five times to get out there and run the machine, as he was not going to see anybody. Walker did, at one time, tell Rutledge, "I'll try to run that machine until 9:00 o'clock if I can see somebody in Personnel," but was told that he would not be promised anything. Finally, after about 15 to 20 minutes, Rutledge told Womack, "Get them out to the guard shack and get them off Company property." Womack then took Walker by the arm and led him to the guard shack. During this walk Womack commented to the two setup men that "I feel like about all you boys are going to do is get the weekend off." Later that day, Walker telephoned Gibson about coming back, and was told that he and Todd had voluntarily quit. Todd's testimony corroborated Walker's with the fol- lowing exceptions. Todd testified that when Townsend A burr shear is a machine that trims excess weld off of an incomplete rim, so that it will fit into the flare die. 5 Two setup men, Clarence Calhoun and Frank Hamilton, testified without contradiction that they asked Walker what was up, and that he replied that he did not know, but guessed that they were being fired first came to them, he stated, "One of you are going to have to run the burr shear and the other one is going to have to stack parts." Then, when Womack came to the line and asked if they were refusing to run the machine and stack parts, he (Todd) replied, "No, we're not refus- ing." When Rutledge met them outside the locker room, and asked him if he was refusing to run a job, Todd an- swered, "No sir. All we wanted was just to see some- body in Personnel, somebody higher." Todd estimated this conversation as taking 2 or 3 minutes, at the end of which Rutledge said, "Okay, you're fired," and told Womack to take them out to the guard house. Todd telephoned Gibson later that day, asked if he and Walker could come out and talk it over, and was told there was nothing to talk over as they had quit. He was also told that he could not go before the review board. On the following day, Todd wrote a letter to the plant manager, Ken Roman, stating that "I am writing this letter" because "I was fired unjustly," and then re- viewed the events of March 3, without ever mentioning Walker. Todd closed by stating, "I have at no time quit my job and am requesting to be heard by the revue [sic] board." 6 (G.C. Exh. 4.) b. According to Respondent's witnesses Townsend testified that he went to Walker and Todd about 7:15 or 7:20 a.m. and told them he was not going to be able to run the line, that he needed their help, and asked Walker to run the flare operation. Walker replied that he had been working 7 days a week, that it was not his job, and he was not going to run the machine. Town- send then left and returned with Womack, after inform- ing him that Walker and Todd had refused to operate a machine. Womack then asked them if they would run any machine on the line, the circle, the burr shear, or the flare. Walker replied, "No, I'm not going to run a ma- chine but I'm not refusing." When Womack asked Todd if he would run one of the machines, Todd shook his head "No." At this point Womack asked for their time- cards and punched them out. His stated reason was that, if they were not going to work, they should not be paid for such time. The two men then locked their tool boxes, and proceeded to the locker room, with Womack follow- ing them. At this point Rutledge appeared on the scene. Rut- ledge had been attending a 7:30 a.m. production meeting in Terry's office, at which Personnel Director Gibson was also present. Here, Rutledge learned that Womack was having a problem with setup people, and he then left the meeting and went to the shop. Rutledge met Womack outside the locker room, and discussed the problem with him. After several minutes, Walker and Todd came out. Rutledge then testified as follows: I asked them what their problem was and Ernie, I think it was Ernie, said he thought it was unfair 6 Walker, when asked if he had requested a review board, testified, "Well, we wrote, me and Charlie, wrote a letter to try to get our job back one time." No evidence of such a letter was placed in the record, and clearly Todd's letter to the Company was not a joint letter with Walker. I do not find that Walker wrote or participated in writing a letter to get his and Todd's job back. 552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAI. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that he had to work on the line that day so I told Ernie, you know, the problem we had with people being off. We needed their help bad to help get the production out and he said that he didn't care he felt that was still unfair. So, I asked him, you know, if he was refusing to do the job and he said, "No," but he just thought it was ufair. Walker then asked if he could have a meeting with the production manager. Rutledge stated that it could not be right at that time because Terry was at a meeting. He also told them that if they would go back to work he would set up a meeting for them to see management. Rutledge then told them that they had 3 minutes to report to work. 7 Walker said again that it was unfair, and walked out the door with Todd following him. Rut- ledge then told Womack to walk out behind them to the guard shack, and he did so. The conference took no more than 5 minutes. Rutledge proceeded to report the event to the production supervisors and the personnel di- rector. Following the receipt of Todd's letter dated March 5, Gibson replied to it on March 13, denying him any relief. The personnel manager concluded his letter as fol- lows: The Review Board is available for employees with over 60 days service with the company that have been discharged by the Company. A quit is not eli- gible for the Review Board. 3. Credibility While this is not the type of case that turns solely on the issue of credibility, the case is too replete with con- flicts of credibility to allow such conflicts to go unre- solved. Walker was an evasive, inconsistent, argumenta- tive, and contradictory witness whose testimony had no ring of truth, and I do not credit his testimony. Several examples are set forth below. When testifying about his conversation with Rutledge outside the locker room, he was asked: Q. And, what did Rutledge say? A. Rutledge didn't say nothing. He said, "You better get on out there and run that machine, that we wasn't going to see nobody." He stated that four or five times and I sort of leaned up against the wall. I was just aiming to wait for Terry Gibson. Terry Gibson comes through there quite a bit and I was going to see him or Ron Terry and talk to them about what was going on out there in the Plant. I felt like deep down.that they didn't know what was going on out there in the Plant. When asked why he reported to work late on the morning of March 3, he answered, "On account of there I Womack testified that Rutledge said, "I'll give you 3 minutes to get back down on the line to go to work, and then we will set up an appoint- ment." Unlike General Counsel's contention in his brief, I do not find these statements of Rutledge and Womack to be inconsistent, but find them to be consistent and corroborative. was a truck across 41." When pressed, he stated that it was the only reason he was late. Then, upon being shown his prehearing affidavit in which he stated that he was late "due to the bad weather," he finally admitted that the truck blockage was caused by the bad weather, and that there was ice on the highway. Todd was a quiet, calm witness, and not the garrulous, argumentative witness that Walker was. In the main, I credit his testimony as a fair representation of the facts as he remembered them. However, I do not credit his testimony that Rutledge said, "Okay, you're fired." While Rutledge was not asked if he said this, he did tes- tify that he had no authority to discharge an employee, a principle that was corroborated by Gibson. Also, Walker did not claim that Rutledge at any time told them that they were fired. Rutledge, Womack, and Townsend, all of whom were up from the ranks, impressed me as completely honest, sincere witnesses who testified in a straightforward manner, and I credit their testimony. C. Analysis and Conclusions The General Counsel contends that Walker and Todd were engaged in a concerted refusal to work in order to secure a meeting with management, and that this was protected, concerted, and union activity for which they were illegally discharged. Respondent, in its brief, vigor- ously denies that the employees were engaged in protect- ed or concerted or union activity, and contends that they were terminated for repeated refusals to work, supple- mented by their unauthorized departure from the plant. It is to be noted that Respondent in its brief does not argue that Walker and Todd voluntarily quit their jobs on March 3, as maintained by Terry during the hearing, and as stated in his March 13 letter to Todd. This is a realistic approach, as the record is clear that Walker and Todd did not "quit" their employment, as that basic word is understood by employees and employers in the industrial shops of this nation. A quit occurs when an employee, by his own act, terminates his employment. In Robert's Dictionary of Industrial Relations, Bureau of National Affairs, 1971 edition, a quit is defined as "The voluntary termination or resignation from employment, which is initiated by the employee." The record is clear that neither Walker nor Todd voluntarily terminated or resigned his employment on March 3, and they at all times considered themselves employees and wanted their jobs. When Walker called Gibson only several hours after leaving the plant, it was Gibson who insisted that he had quit, whereas Walker denied it. Todd, likewise, was told by the personnel manager on the same day that he had quit, despite his protestations. Todd, in his letter to the Company also denied that he had quit, only to be told in the personnel director's letter of March 13 that he had quit. Section 7 of the Act guarantees to employees the right to "engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection .... " and Section 8(a)(l) forbids an employer "to inter- fere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7." Thus, if Walker's and Todd's activity is of the type comtemplated by Sec- FIRESTONE STEEL PRODUCTS CO. 553 tion 7, and if they were discharged for having engaged in it, then the Company thereby violated Section 8(a)(1). The protestations of Walker and Todd that they did not refuse to obey an order are as incorrect as the per- sonnel manager's claim that they quit. It is true that they told Womack that they were not refusing to run a ma- chine, but this was doubletalk. Their action is standing there and not starting up and running a machine spoke clearer than their mere words in showing that they were refusing an order.8 Then, when Rutledge asked Walker outside the locker room if he were refusing to do the job, Walker's denial that he was not was negated by his action of standing there mute for several minutes. However, when Walker and Todd stood beside the machines and at the locker room door, and requested to see the personnel manager or the plant manager, they were engaging in protected concerted activity. The le- gitimate interest of employees to seek such a meeting, and the statutory protection against reprisals, where the right is asserted, is firmly imbedded in Board and court decisions. The principle was stated long ago in N.L.R.B. v. Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Co., 167 F.2d 983, 988 (7th Cir. 1948), "even though no union activity be in- volved, or collective-bargaining contemplated . . . [em- ployees have] . . . a legitimate interest in acting concer- tedly in making known their views to management with- out being discharged for that interest." Walker and Todd had no union representation, and no meaningful, enforceable grievance procedure to present their complaint to management. In Masonic and Eastern Star Home of the District of Columbia, 206 NLRB 127 (1973), the Board held that in the absence of an estab- lished grievance procedure the conduct of a group of employees in stopping work and concertedly presenting a grievance concerning terms and conditions of employ- ment is within the protection of the Act. Walker's and Todd's conduct was clearly concerted in nature as they shared the common complaint that they did not want to work outside their classification of setup men, and perform the duties of machine operators. Whether this was reasonable or not is immaterial as em- ployees' concerted activity need not be reasonable in order to be protected. N.L.R.B. v. Washington Aluminum Company, Inc., 370 U.S. 9, (1962). Nor does the fact that they voluntarily left the plant remove them from the protection of the Act. By leaving the plant they assumed the status of strikers, and nothing could be clearer in the annals of the Act than an employer cannot discharge em- ployees for striking in such a factual context. Respondent points out in its brief, as a vindication of its handling of the two setup men, the case of Jack Jen- nings. Jennings was terminated in April 1977 for refusing to perform a work assignment, and for leaving the plant without permission. Jennings filed a charge with the 8 Wallace's contentions at the hearing that he was unable to run the burr machine are without merit. He had first worked for Respondent as a machine operator, and had been promoted to the more skilled classifica- tion of setup man. He admitted that he had started the burr shear ma- chine up, and changed its blades but claimed he had never "fully operat- ed" one. Rutledge testified credibly that a setup man is required to know how to run each machine, as well as how to set it up In an) event, nei- ther Wallace sic] nor Todd told his supervisor on the morning of March 3, that he did not have the skill to operate the burr shear machine Board claiming that his termination violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. However, after a Board inves- tigation, the charge was withdrawn and no further action was taken. What Respondent overlooks in its analogy is that there is nothing in the record to show that Jennings was acting in concert with any other employee. Jennings was acting in his individual capacity, and, as such, was not covered by the umbrella of Section 7 that gives em- ployees the right to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid and protection. Respondent also points out that employees Leslie Butler, Robert Gillham, and Tyrone McGuire were discharged for refusing to do assigned work.9 All that the record shows is that these employees were terminated on different days, and there is nothing in the record to indicate that any two of them ever acted jointly in a concerted manner, so that they could assert their rights under the Act. Upon the foregoing, and upon the record as a whole, it is found that Respondent, by discharging Ernest Walker, Jr., and Charles Todd because of their concerted activity protected by the Act, violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. Thermofil, Inc., 244 NLRB No. 171 (1979); American Truck Stop, Inc., 218 NLRB 1038 (1975); Crenlo, Division of GF Business Equipment, Inc., 215 NLRB 872 (1974). Inasmuch as the Order recommended hereinafter would not be affected, I find it unnecessary to pass upon General Counsel's further contention that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by dis- charging Walker and Todd. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean- ing of the Act. 3. By discharging Ernest Walker, Jr., and Charles Todd on March 3, 1978, and thereafter refusing to rein- state them, for engaging in protected concerted activi- ties, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and co- erced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and has thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. The foregoing unfair labor practices affect com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist there- from and take certain affirmative action designed to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act. It having been found that Respondent unlawfully dis- charged Ernest Walker, Jr., and Charles Todd, I shall 9 Sec. II of Respndent's handbook provides certain rules, which, if vio- lated, subject the violators to suspension and discharge Rule 5 states: Refusal or failure to perform work assigned or refusal or failure to follow the directions or instructions of management unless such as- signment is later proven to have been such as to unreasonably endan- ger life or health 554 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL, LABOR RELATIONS BOARD recommend that it be ordered to offer them immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent jobs, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and to make them whole for any resultant loss of earnings and other benefits. Their loss of earnings shall be computed as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962), and Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER ' 0 The Respondent, Firestone Steel Products Company, a Division of Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, Hen- derson, Kentucky, its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Terminating or otherwise interfering with, restrain- ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is nec- essary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Ernest Walker, Jr., and Charles Todd rein- statement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent jobs, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suf- fered in the manner set forth in the section of this Deci- sion entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time- cards, personnel records and reports, and all other re- cords necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (c) Post at its Henderson, Kentucky, plant copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said 'O In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 10246 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 thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. II In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 25, after being duly signed by Respondent's rep- resentative, shall be posted by it immediately upon re- ceipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov- ered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 25, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges a violation of the Act not herein found, be, and the same is, dismissed. Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT terminate or otherwise interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exer- cise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner in- terfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed them in Sec- tion 7 of the Act. WE WILL offer Ernest Walker, Jr., and Charles Todd immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to sub- stantially equivalent jobs, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and WE WILL make them whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as the result of their termina- tion on March 3, 1978, with interest. FIRESTONE STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY, A DIVISION OF FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY