Atlas Engine Works, Inc.

ATLAS ENGINE WORKS, INC. 101 In the original Intermediate Report the Trial Examiner indicated that Rowell had not made a favorable impression upon him (the Trial Examiner). After observing Rowell at the further hearing on March 29, 1960 , and analyzing his testimony the Trial Examiner adheres to his view that Rowell is not a reliable witness and again rejects his testimony where it is in conflict with other evidence.1 At the further hearing held on March 29, 1960, each of the parties herein was afforded an opportunity to offer into evidence the collective-bargaining agreements rejected at the original hearing or any collective -bargaining agreements between "Respondent and the Charging Party which govern the terms and conditions of employment of Respondent's employees at the stores covered by such agreements." Such documents were not offered . Furthermore , statements by counsel for the Charging Party indicate that there are no collective -bargaining agreements between Respondent and the Charging Party. In its directions that the Trial Examiner issue a Supplemental Intermediate Report, the Board directed that such report contain , inter alia, findings of fact pertinent to the business of Respondent, the Board's jurisdiction with respect thereto, and the status of the labor organizations. Respondents are separate corporate entities but for the purpose of this proceeding may be considered as a single Employer engaged in the operation of department stores in various States of the United States, including one located at Hybla Valley, Fairfax County, Virginia. The store at Hybla Valley was open for business on or about March 23, 1959. In the operations of the department stores in various States of the United States, Respondent receives a gross income from sales in excess of $500,000 annually. Purchases of merchandise, equipment, and supplies of substantial value are received annually from points and places located outside the States in which the various department stores operated by Respondent are located. It is anticipated that the gross income from sales at the Hybla Valley store will exceed $500,000 annually and that merchandise, equipment, and supplies of substantial value will be received at said store from points and places located outside the State of Virginia. The evidence reveals that Respondent is engaged in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) of the Act and that the Board's requirements for the assertion of jurisdiction have been satisfied. Retail Store Employees Local 400, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL- CIO, and Retail , Wholesale & Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, and its Local 770, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. As supplemented by the information contained herein the Intermediate Report issued on October 23 , 1959, is hereby reissued. 1 The reasons or basis for such credibility resolutions are personal demeanor , conduct and attitude of witnesses, and careful evaluation and weighing of evidence and inherent probability. Atlas Engine Works, Inc. and International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 8-CA-204E8. September 22, 1960 DECISION AND ORDER On May 10, 1960, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report appended hereto. Thereafter, the Re- spondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. 129 NLRB No. 17. - 102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and Fanning]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.' The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and the brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,2 conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner. Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Atlas Engine Works, Inc., Woodville and Gibsonburg, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in, and activities on behalf of, Inter- national Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization, by discharging, laying off, refusing to reinstate, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (b) Threatening employees with economic reprisals to discourage membership in or activity on behalf of any labor organization. (c) Interrogating employees as to their membership in, or activities on behalf of, the above-named or any other labor organization in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1). (d) Creating the impression among employees that their union activities are under surveillance. 1 Respondent objected on hearsay grounds to the admission into evidence of a letter from Dr R A. Borden certifying that employee Frank Topel was physically capable of returning to Respondent's employ We rely on this letter only to the extent that Respondent requested a note from a doctor attesting that Topel was physically fit to work and that Topel presented one to Respondent, and not to the truth of the matter contained therein. The objection is therefore overruled. z In adopting the Trial Examiner's finding that Respondent had knowledge of Robert Shull's activities on behalf of the Union and discharged him for that reason, we addi- tionally rely upon the testimony of employee Donald Claypool to the effect that T. W Clark, president of Respondent , told Claypool that Shull had been discharged for union activities. Clark denied that he made this statement to Claypool. The Trial Examiner did not re- solve this conflict in testimony . However, as Clark's testimony was discredited by the Trial Examiner in other areas, we find that Claypool 's account of this incident is the more credible one Member Rodgers, in adopting the Trial Examiner's finding that Respondent had knowledge of Shull 's union activities, does not rely upon the circumstance that Re- spondent's plant is located in a small community. The Trial Examiner found that Foreman Ray Ramirez questioned employee William Peiffer about his connection with the Union after Peiffer had signed a union card. How- ever, the record reveals that this questioning occurred before Peiffer had signed up with the Union . While we correct this error , we find that the error does not affect the Trial Examiner' s ultimate conclusion that Respondent discriminatorily discharged Peiffer nor our concurrence therein. ATLAS ENGINE WORKS, IN C. 103 (e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist any labor organization, to bargain through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in any other concerted activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organi- zation as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Dis- closure Act of 1959. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Offer employees Frank Topel, Robert Shull, and William Peiffer immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substan- tially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them and employee Vincent Fisher whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them, in the manner set forth in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying all payrollecords, social security payment records, timecards, personnel recor and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amounts of backpay due and the right of reinstatement under the terms of this Order. (c) Post at its Gibsonburg and Woodville, Ohio, plants and office, copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report and marked "Appendix." S Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Eighth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof in con- spicuous places, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith. a This notice shall be amended by substituting for the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner" the words "A Decision and Order." In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order." INTERMEDIATE REPORT STATEMENT OF THE CASE Charges having been filed and served, a complaint and notice of hearing thereon having been issued and served by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, and an answer having been filed by the above-named Respondent, a hearing involving allegations of unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and ( 3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, was held in Fremont, Ohio, on April 12 and 13 , 1960, before the duly designated Trial Examiner. 104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD All parties were represented by counsel, and were afforded full opportunity to present evidence pertinent to the issues. Counsel for the Respondent and General Counsel argued orally at the conclusion of the taking of testimony. A brief has been received from the Respondent. Upon the record thus made, and from his observation of the witnesses, the Trial Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Atlas Engine Works, Inc., is an Ohio corporation, with its principal office in Woodville, Ohio, and plant at Gibsonburg, Ohio, at which plant it is engaged in the manufacture of crank shafts. The Respondent annually causes products and services valued at more than $100,000 to be sold directly to customers located outside the State of Ohio, and also to customers located in the State of Ohio "who in turn ship products valued in excess of $50,000 outside the State of Ohio." I H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Setting and issues All of the events in issue occurred within a short period after employees at the Respondent's Gibsonburg plant began organizational efforts in October 1959. Perhaps, for clarity at the outset , it should be noted that while the chief events involve employees then aitIe Gibsonburg plant, some of them happened in Wood- ville, where not only is locked the office of the Respondent 's Gibsonburg plant, but also another plant operated under the same ownership and management , but known as Atlas Industries , Inc. T. W. Clark, president and general manager of both concerns, stated that there is frequent exchange of employees between the two plants under his control? Clark characterized the Gibsonburg plant as being in "a small community and most of the boys go to the same church that I attend...." Organization began on October 26, 1959, when employees Frank Topel and Vincent Fisher, having obtained authorization cards from a representative of the Charging Union, visited the homes of other employees and got five signatures to such cards . The next night the two went to more homes, and had four additional employees sign. On the following day, October 28, both Topel and Fisher were summoned to the office of T. E. Clark , at that time chairman of the board for the Respondent, but since then deceased . As described more fully below , following Clark's interrogation of the two employees Fisher was dismissed and a few days later Topel was discharged. At about the same time similar summary action was taken by the Respondent against two employees-William Peiffer and Robert Shull-whose signatures to cards had been obtained by Fisher and Topel. General Counsel contends , and the Re- spondent denies, that all four discharges were discriminatory and unlawfully motivated. At issue, also, are a number of incidents claimed by General Counsel as unlawful interference, restraint, and coercion. B. The discharges 1. Vincent Fisher and Frank Topel Shortly before noon on October 28,3 the day after he and Fisher had made their second visit to employees' homes as described above, Frank Topel was approached 1 The quotation is from and the findings based upon a stipulation of the parties placed In evidence by General Counsel. Clark said : "We try to keep our employment level. In that way we move the fellows back and forth rather than lay them off. We try to keep our employment even We move them from Gtbsonburg to Woodville and from Woodville back if we have a job for them there." 8 At one point the transcript shows "October 20" as the date of this incident. Other evidence establishes, however, that it occurred on October 28, as found ATLAS ENGINE WORKS, INC. 105 by Clark, Sr.,4 and asked if what he had heard about his trying to organize a union was true. Topel said he knew nothing about it. Clark warned him: "There will be no guys putting a union in this place," declared that although he had been on his way to "write up your check" he could return to work but must "watch" himself. (The quotations are from Topel's testimony.) A few minutes later, during the noon hour, Fisher was taken to Clark's office by Plant Manager George Bush. In the latter's presence Clark asked Fisher if he knew anything about a union. When the employee answered "no," Clark accused him of lying. Fisher turned to Bush, asked if "this was the way a man was treated here," and Bush replied that Clark was the "boss." Bush, however, told Ciark that he thought the employee was telling the truth, whereupon Clark directed Fisher to bring him the names of anyone who talked to him about the Union, warned him that "no punks are going to put a union in my Company," and "that he wouldn't tolerate it and he would just shut the place down," and finally told him to go back to work.5 Shortly after Fisher left Clark's office, Topel was called in, and in the plant manager's presence was told by Clark that "Vince Fisher accuses you of starting a union." When Topel denied the accusation, Clark declared that he "was one of the most convincing liars he ever saw." Bush interposed and urged Topel to admit it, adding- "We know you are good friends Admit that you started a union " Topel again denied it. After some further argument, Fisher was called back to the office, and in Topel's presence was again asked if he had started a union. Fisher again answered "no," but admitted that he had talked to Topel about a union. At this point Clark said, "That is all I needed to know. You are fired, get off the premises." Fisher complied, and left the plant.6 As Fisher left the office with Bush, Clark turned to Topel and said, "Well, what are we going to do with you, now?" Apparently as a result of observing the treat- ment Fisher had received, Topel replied, "I don't know. There shouldn't be a union in the country." Clark then said, "You know you can get me in a lot of trouble for this and might go to Cleveland." (The Board's Regional Office is located in Cleveland.) Finally he warned the employee, "Keep your mouth shut," and told him that if he knew anything about the union organization to come and tell him. Topel was then permitted to return to work.? Later in the afternoon of the same day, when Fisher went to the Woodville office to pick up his discharge check, he was again called into the office of Clark, Sr. Clark asked him, among other things, why he wanted a union in the shop. While Fisher and Clark were discussing a base-rate plan for the plant, one of Clark's sons, Gaylord, came in. Clark, Sr., then asked Fisher to "confess" his union activities, and told him he had "paid extra money" to certain "loyal employees" who told him what was going on in the plant about "the union " He then asked Fisher directly whether certain other employees, including Topel, had "anything to do with the Union or signing up cards." Fisher answered "no" to each question, whereupon Clark told him to come back in a week to "see about" his job, and gave him his discharge check.8 On November 4 Fisher went back to see Clark, Sr., about his job. As he entered the office, Clark asked him if he had signed up any more employees. Fisher said he had not. Clark again asked him to "confess" his union activities and to give him the names of employees who had "signed up." Fisher declined. After telling the employee again that he would not "tolerate" a union in the plant, but would 4 The elder Clark, now deceased, is referred to throughout the record as "Sr." 6 Fisher's account of this interview, from which the quotations appear, is uncon- tradicted by Bush, although he was a witness And candid testimony of Gaylord Clark, his son, plainly shows that Clark, Sr., was not out of character in making the remarks Fisher and other witnesses attributed to him. "In fact," said Gaylord Clark, "he always disgusted me in never giving the other fellow a chance to talk. . . . Dad was always up to form. . . . He was a dynamic speaker." 6 The findings as to this interview are based upon the credible testimony of the em- ployees, from which the quotations are made. The version given by Bush, to the effect that Fisher was called In because he "disliked" to work on the second shift, is incredible on its face And In any event Bush said he was not there throughout, or did not recall much of the conversation. 7 The quotations are from Topel's testimony. 8 The findings as to this last interview of October 28 are based upon Fisher's credible testimony, the essential portions of which are not contradicted. 0 106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 0 'shut it down, Clark said that "if he couldn't trust a man, he didn't want him to work for him," and told Fisher to leave the office .9 Two days later, on November 6, a charge relating to Fisher's discharge was filed with the Board's Regional Office and served upon the Respondent. On November 17, Fisher received a registered letter from the Respondent, recalling him to work the next day, but at the Woodville plant of the other Clark-owned concern, Atlas Industries. The day after reporting for work, Clark, Sr., told him that if he would "quit" his union activities, he would give him his backpay. There is no evidence, however, that he was paid for time lost between October 28 and November 18. Returning to the case of Frank Topel. On November 4, the same day Fisher was again told to "leave" after refusing to reveal the names of union adherents, Topel was sent to Clark, Sr., by Plant Manager Bush, with a layoff slip upon which the reason was noted: "health, physical reasons." Clark, Sr., told Topel he knew nothing about it, and told him to return the next day, and in the meantime he would talk to the plant manager. From a document placed in evidence by the Respondent, it appears that Clark then wrote to a Columbus firm of "Actuarial Consultants" re- garding the employment risk of an employee with "a heart condition and a pulse of 130 " In any event, this firm sent Clark a letter, dated November 5, containing the following first paragraph: We acknowledge receipt of your letter of November 4th in reference to an individual in your employ who has a heart condition and a pulse of 130 and you expressed belief that he should not continue in your employ. On November 5, Topel returned to the plant and was told by Clark that he could come back to work if he got a written "okay" from the doctor. On November 18, Topel presented Clark with a letter, which he obtained from Dr. Robert A. Borden, his physician, the preceding day. The letter states: Mr. Frank Topel is able to do all and any type of work. Sincerely, R. A. BORDEN, M.D. 'Clark, however, refused to reinstate Topel, and he has not been returned to work. The Trial Examiner concludes and finds, on the basis of the preponderance of credible evidence, that both Fisher and Topel were discharged unlawfully, to dis- courage membership in the Charging Union. Undisputed evidence concerning Fisher is so overwhelming as to require no further summary. And the Respondent offered no credible or competent evidence to support any reason other than his union activities for the action against him. As to Topel, the Respondent did offer some testimony, through Bush, tending to show that he was laid off for "health" reasons The plant manager's testimony on the point, however, lacks convincing quality. It is inconsistent with action taken by Clark, Sr., established by the letter from the "actuaries," and put in evidence by the Respondent. In short, it was his claim that he laid Topel off because of the employee's "faintness, light-headedness" and his fear that he might be injured running a machine. No claim was made by him, however, that any accident or near accident involving the employee had ever occurred at the plant. His contention that he was precipitated into taking the action because of seeing a newspaper item on 'October 26 relating to a minor driving accident Topel had been involved in the preceding day, is unpersuasive. Withholding emergency action 9 days may hardly be termed precipitate, and the Trial Examiner notes that there are that number of days between October 26 and November 4. During that interval, however, Topel was discovered to be active in organizing the Union, and had been hailed before Clark, Sr., where nothing at all was said about his health. That the "health" claim was a mere pretext, moreover, is well established by that fact that even after Topel obtained the written clearance from his doctor, Clark -refused to reinstate him By these discharges, and by the above-described interrogations conducted by Clark, Sr., his threats to close the plant, and his claims that "loyal employees" were revealing the names of union adherents, the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act. 9 The findings also rest upon Fisher's testimony . The Trial Examiner can place no reliance upon the plainly fabricated testimony of Gaylord Clark , who claimed that Fisher refused to go back to work unless he "got a quarter or thirty-five cents more " In any event, Gaylord Clark admitted that he was not present at the end of the interview. ATLAS ENGINE WORKS, INC. 107 2. Robert Shull This employee, in the Armed Forces at the time of the hearing, was discharged by Plant Manager Bush on Monday, November 16. According to Bush, he took this action because Shull had not reported his absence from a regular shift the preceding Saturday night. It is undisputed, however, that Shull did report his inten- tion to be absent to the foreman of his shift, one Ramirez, and on cross-examination Bush admitted that Ramirez was an "appropriate person to have reported absent to," since he was "in charge of the shift." It is therefore clear from the manager's own testimony that there is no merit in his claimed reason for the discharge. Shull signed a union card upon solicitation by Fisher and Topel shortly before ,his discharge. As noted in the preceding section, it is undisputed that Clark, Sr., ,on October 28 told Fisher that he was paying "extra money" to "loyal employees" to keep him informed of the "union situation." This fact, in addition to other evi- ,dence introduced by the Respondent as to the small community, supports the reasonable inference that management became aware of Shull's signing a card, and that this was the real reason for the discharge. It is so concluded and found. Such unlawful action interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act. 3. William Peiffer Peiffer, an apprentice machinist at the Atlas Industries' Woodville plant, was suddenly transferred to the Gibsonburg plant on October 30, and under another foreman assigned to sweeping floors and whitewashing. This transfer followed promptly upon his having been twice questioned by Inspector Ray Ramirez at the Woodville plant as to his "connection" with the Union. Ramirez was not called as a witness, and Peiffer's testimony is undisputed that the inspector told him he was questioning him upon instructions from Clark, Sr., and that he had with him "a long list of names with everybody's name on it that was supposed to be connected with the Union." Although Peiffer told Ramirez he had had nothing to do with the ,organization, he had actually signed a card for Fisher and Topel. In the afternoon of October 31, the second day of his having worked under Foreman Joreski at the Gibsonburg plant, Peiffer was approached by that foreman, accused of spilling whitewash and sent back to the Woodville plant to see Clark, Sr. Peiffer disclaimed responsibility for spilled whitewash, but the foreman declined to investigate his claim that the fault lay with two helpers who had earlier been on the job. Peiffer reported to Clark, as instructed. Clark told him that he would talk to the foreman over the weekend, but for him to report the following Monday morning. Peiffer reported. He was then fired by Clark, who merely informed the employee that the foreman had said he had "slopped paint" and "cussed a fellow- worker." Peiffer denied having cursed anyone, but Clark refused to investigate and gave him his check. The foregoing facts are based upon the employee's uncontradicted testimony. Clark, Sr., as noted before, is deceased. Joreski, the foreman, is no longer connected with the Respondent. President T. W. Clark testified that he knew of Joreski's whereabouts, but there is no showing that the Respondent made any effort to call him as a witness. Thus the record is barren of any competent testimony from any representative of management as to why Peiffer was discharged. The only witness called by the Respondent as to any event before the discharge was a helper, Bruce King, who told of an incident which he described as having caused him to laugh. Even if his testimony is to be accepted as true, the incident is minor. According to him it was his job to keep tar buckets filled for Peiffer and others who were tarring a roof. As he came by Peiffer on one occasion, and noted the tar supply low, he asked the employee if he wanted more. According to his testimony, Peiffer casually inquired, "How would you like to go to hell?" Peiffer denied making the remark. Even if made, and made during the 2-day period he was at the Gibsonburg plant before being fired, the incident plainly did not warrant discharge. Under the circumstances described above, including the fact noted that no re- sponsible management representative testified as to why Peiffer was dismissed, the Trial Examiner is convinced and finds that he was actually discharged because Clark, Sr., believed him to be a union adherent, and to discourage union activity. Such unlawful conduct interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act. 108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD C. Other interference, restraint, and coercion On October 28, the same day that employee Fisher was dismissed by Clark, Foreman Richard Foster interrogated employee Donald Claypool as to whether or not he "knew anything about the union going on around there." (Foster, in effect, admitted this interrogation.) The next day employee Richard Brown was summoned to the office by Clark, Sr., who demanded: "What is this about you and the Union?" Clark further asked the employee if he wanted to keep his job, and said that if he did not tell him who had "signed up," he would be let go. He asked if he, himself, had signed a card. Clark asked specifically if Claypool, Fisher, and Topel had been passing around cards. Finally Brown was permitted to return to work. (Brown's account of this interview is uncontradicted, although it appears that T. W. Clark was present during a good part of it.) It is undisputed that twice during December Plant Manager Bush asked employee Brown while at work if union representatives had visited him. Also in December, during a 2-week layoff period which is not alleged as an unfair labor practice, Brown was called to the plant by President Clark, son of Clark, Sr., and was asked if he knew why he had been laid off. Having been so thoroughly interrogated by Clark, Sr., Brown replied that he did-because of his union activities. Clark then asked him if he had "signed up," and if he knew of others who had. When Brown denied knowledge, Clark produced a list of names of employees at the Gibonsburg plant and, reading down the list, asked if each had signed. Brown denied having knowledge. Clark then told him to report back for work the next day, but to "keep his nose clean" and have nothing to do with the Union.io The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the above-described incidents of interrogation and threats constitute interference, restraint, and coercion violative of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent, set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, 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 the Trial Examiner will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirm- ative action to effectuate the policies of the Act. It will be recommended that the Respondent' offer immediate and full reinstate- ment to employees Topel, Shull, and Peiffer to their former or substantially equiva- lent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges. In the case of Shull, since the record does not show when his period of service in the Armed Forces is to terminate, it is recommended that the Respondent notify him immediately, by registered letter, that he will be reinstated upon application within 90 days from the termination of such service. It will be further recommended that the Respondent make the above-named and Fisher whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination against them. by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he would normally have earned as wages, absent the discrimination , from the date of discrimination to the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement , less their net earnings during the said periods and in a manner consistent with Board policy set out in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 and Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440. It will also be recommended that the Respondent , upon request, make available to the Board and its agents all payroll and other records pertinent to the analysis of the amounts of backpay due and the right of reinstatement. 10 As a witness, 'Clark admitted the occasion and conceded that he went over a "list" with the employee He said that he recalled nothing being said about the Union on this occasion except his telling the employee he had not been laid off because of It His explanation that the list was used merely to check who had been recalled and who had not Is not credited . It lacks reasonableness of context , even as described by himself. Clark's denials of Interrogating employees generally Is not considered by the Trial Examiner as having persuasive weight In the light of the employee's specific testimony. ATLAS ENGINE WORKS, INC. 109 Since the violations of the Act which the Respondent has committed are related to other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act, and the danger of their com- mission in the future is reasonably to be anticipated from its past conduct, the pre- ventive purposes of the Act may be thwarted unless the recommendations are coextensive with the threat. To effectuate the policies of the Act, therefore, it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed employees by the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of employees Fisher, Topel, Shull, and Peiffer, thereby discouraging membership in the above- named labor organization, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership in International Union, United Auto- mobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization, by discharging, laying off, refusing to rein- state, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT threaten employees with reprisals to discourage membership in and activity on behalf of any labor organization. WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees as to their membership in or activity on behalf of any labor organization in a manner constituting interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. WE WILL NOT create the impression among employees that their union activities are under surveillance. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce can- ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organiza- tions, to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to en- gage in any 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 right might 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. WE WILL offer to Frank Topel, Robert Shull, and William Peiffer immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, and make them and Vincent Fisher whole for any loss of pay they may have suf- fered by reason of the discrimination against them. ATLAS ENGINE WORKS, INC., Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.