Galar Industries, Inc.

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Galar Industries, Incorporated and Sheet Metal Workers' International Association Local Union 565, affiliated with the Sheet Metal Workers' Inter- national Association. Cases 30 CA 4267 and 30- CA-4278 October 20, 1978 DECISION AND ORDER By MEMBERS JENKINS. MURPHY, ANi) TRUESI)AILE On August 10, 1978, Administrative Law Judge Julius Cohn issued the attached Decision in this pro- ceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Realtions Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, 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, Galar Industries, Incor- porated, Cottage Grove, Wisconsin, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in said recommended Order. Respondent has excepted to certain credbhilit) findings made hs the Administrative Law Judge, It is the Board's established polici no' to over- rule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions sith respect to credibiltiy unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard l)rv Waill Pr,,ducts. In., 91 NL RB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d ( ir 1951). We have carefulkl examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings DECISION S1ATEMENI OF THE CASE JULIUS COHN. Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard at Madison, Wisconsin, on December 8 and 9, 1977. Upon charges filed in Cases 30-CA-4267 and 30-CA4278 by Sheet Metal Workers' International Association Local Union 565, affiliated with the Sheet Metal Workers' Inter- national Association, herein called the Union, the Regional Director for Region 30, on August 17, 1977, issued an or- der consolidating cases and a consolidated complaint. The complaint alleged that Galar Industries, Incorporated, herein called Respondent or the Company, violated Sec- tion 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act by terminating two of its employees because of their union activities and indepen- dently violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act by interrogating unlawfully an applicant for employment. At the hearing the complaint was amended to allege that Respondent ad- ditionally violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by publishing a handbook of work rules and procedures which contained an unlawful rule against solicitations and distribution. All parties were given full opportunity to participate, to produce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs. A brief submit- ted by Respondent has been carefully considered. Upon the entire record of the case and from my observa- tion of the witnesse:; and their demeanor, I make the fol- lowing: FINDINGS OF FACT I THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent, a Wisconsin corporation, maintains an of- fice and plant at Cottage Grove, Wisconsin, where it is engaged in the manufacture of cultured marble products. During the 12 months preceding issuance of the complaint, Respondent manufactured, sold, and shipped goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 to firms which in turn made sales in excess of $50,000 to customers located out- side the State of Wisconsin. The complaint alleges, Re- spondent admits, and I find that Respondent is an em- ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 1I THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background Respondent is a family owned corporation managed principally by Vince Galarowicz, its president. Dennis, his son, is secretary of the corporation and is concerned main- ly with administration such as payrolls and other record- keeping. Joseph Galarowicz, a brother and vice president, at the time of the events involved herein, was production foreman. In its plant, Respondent, using synthetic marbel material, manufactures sinks, splash guards for installation behind them, and panels for bathtubs and shower stalls. During July 1977, Respondent employed 13 nonsuperviso- ry employees who worked on a shift starting at 7 a.m. until 3:30 p.m.. and during the summer sometimes from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., and on Saturdays from 6 a.m. until II a.m. Production employees were usually hired at a rate of $4 an hour and received increases from time to time as de- termined by Vince. Respondent had no formal procedures for discipline such as the issuance of written warnings for breaches or for improper work performance. 28 GALAR INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED Near the plant was a tavern called the Hope Bar, to which the employees frequently went for lunch, and more often at the end of the day's work for refreshment. B. Facts 1. The termination of Ronald Kirk Kirk was employed as a laborer from August 19, 1976, until his discharge on July 23, 1977. He started his employ- ment at a rate of $4 per hour and recieved periodic raises until he was earning $5 at the time of his termination. About 10 days prior to Saturday, July 15, Kirk asked Vince for that day off as well as an hour on the previous Friday. He told Vince that he had been long planning to spend the weekend at Lake Geneva and, according to Kirk, Vince replied O.K. Vince testified that he told Kirk that they were busy in the plant and he did not see how he could let him go. At this Kirk repeated that he had planned for a long time and was going to go and Vince replied that he could not stop him. There is no indication that Vince directed Kirk not to leave for his weekend or warned him of any consequence that would follow if he did. Kirk re- ported back to work on Monday, July 18, worked for about an hour and then asked Vince if he could leave be- cause he was not feeling well. Vince testified that he com- plained to Kirk about his taking off Saturday and said he could not see how he could let him go again today as there was too much work. He then walked away. Shortly thereaf- ter Kirk was picked up by his fiancee and went home. Later that day Vince called Kirk at home and told him that he should take more time off and come back when he was feeling better on Thursday. Vince stated that he told Kirk specifically that he was suspended until Thursday. Kirk testified that although Vince did not say those words, he understood the 2-day layoff to be in the nature of a suspension. Thus the effect is the same regardless of wheth- er Vince actually referred to a suspension. The day before he returned to work, Kirk visited the office of the Union and spoke to Dennis McDowell about forming a union in the shop. McDowell wanted to set up a meeting for the following Monday but Kirk hesitated be- cause he was not sure the employees would want tiais at a time when they were still hoping for a summer bonus. Later that day Kirk reported this discussion with McDo- well to Lon Gilman. Kirk stated that when he returned to work on Thursday, July 21 he spoke about the Union to a number of the em- ployees individually in the shop, including Gilman, Brey, Presley, Alestri and Ellistad. He tried to convince them to come down and meet with McDowell. Eventually the em- ployees agreed to meet on Tuesday, July 26, since none of them thought by this time that they were going to get a summer bonus. Among the things they discussed was the feeling held by everyone that Kirk's 2-day suspension was unfair and the need to improve work standards. On the following day, July 22, Kirk continued to talk to employees including Alestri and Degnan, an installer, about the meet- ing scheduled for July 26. Prior to this Alestri had been involved in an incident where he bilked the owner of Hope Tavern by taking some excess change that did not belong to him. On July 22, be- fore noon, Kirk, in the presence of Gilman and Presley, informed Alestri that the tavern owner had become aware of his taking the money and that he, Alestri, should not go back there for a while because the owner said he would throw him out. At this news, Alestn became incensed and threw down a table top and then just left. This is somewhat confirmed by the testimony of Alestri himself who stated that he was quite upset. Kirk and the others then went to the tavern for lunch that day. Upon their returning they observed Alestri's car parked in front of the office. Alestri acknowledged talking with Vince upon his own return from lunch, but asserted that the conversation was con- fined to his own gripes and there was no mention of union- ization. On Saturday, Ju'y 23, Kirk reported at 6 a.m. and worked until II a.m At the end of that morning's work he was called over the loudspeaker by Vince to come to the office. Vince showed him a paper with his address written on it and asked if it was correct. Vince then asked why was he giving Dennis trouble about dirty dixie cups to which Kirk replied that he felt that they should not be forced to use them in the shop. Vince then noted that he had marble all over him and his hair was not combed and he looked a mess. Kirk did not respond to this and Vince then told him that he would mail him his check on Thursday. When Kirk asked whether he was being fired, Vince told him to "get the hell out," and that he had never thought Kirk would be two-faced. Kirk then said "you are the two-faced son-of- bitch" and left. Vince testified that he had made the decision to dis- charge Kirk. He stated that on Thursday when Kirk re- turned to work he was very noisy and by Saturday he thought that matters had gone far enough. He called Kirk in and told him that, because of his drinking, he was com- ing to work with a big head; he was late many times: and he was going to have to let him go. Kirk then stood up, slammed his fist on Vince's desk and called him a two- faced SOB and walked out. Vince also stated that Kirk had been orally reprimanded on several occasions for being late. In the course of his two appearances as a witness, Vince testified that he had dis- charged Kirk because of his taking off on the weekend to Lake Geneva, because Kirk came in late often and took days off, because Kirk threatened him, because of Kirk's drinking problem, and finally because of his work attitude and the filthy condition of his work area. On the day of his discharge, Kirk called a high school friend, Dave O'Connor, whom he knew to be unemployed. He told O'Connor that he had been fired and he should apply for a job. He advised O'Connor to tell Vince that he did not drink or smoke and to impress upon him that he was antiunion and would be for management. O'Connor went to Respondent's office on Monday morning and introduced himself to Vince who asked him some questions. Vince then asked what he thought about unions, stating that he had fired a troublemaker with the Union. O'Connor immediately replied that he was against unions whatsoever, that he needed a job and was a good strong worker. The next morning O'Connor received a call and was told to report to work, which he did. O'Connor 29 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELAT IONS BOARD worked for about 2 months when he was terminated for having been absent too long while attending a friend's fu- neral. Vince testified that he did not interrogate O'Connor as to his union activities stating that he would never do such a thing as he had no objections himself to unions.' 2. The discharge of Len Gilman Gilman was employed from May 5, 1976, until July 30, 1977, having been hired at the rate of $4 and hour and was earning $5 per hour when discharged. According to Gil- man, he was reprimanded by Dennis Galarowicz sometime in May for coming late to work. Gilman mentioned this to Vince later, who shrugged his shoulders, and to Joe, his foreman, who told him that he gave the orders and Gilman should not listen to Dennis. Also on an occasion early in July, Vince reprimanded him for driving too fast at the Company premises and squealing his tires, this having oc- curred twice in I day. During Kirk's suspension on July 19 and 20, he had spo- ken to McDowell about a union, as described above, and discussed it with Gilman. On July 21, when Kirk returned to work, he and Gilman both discussed the question of unions with the other employees at the plant. Among others, Kirk told Alestri, in Gilman's presence that morn- ing about the Union and at that point Alestri thought it a good idea because he was angered at not receiving a bonus. However, later that morning Alestri was even more upset when Kirk told him of the Hope Tavern incident as noted above. Gilman corroborated having seen Alestri sitting at Vince's desk that day and talking to him. Gilman did not work on July 27, having taken his moth- er to the hospital. That afternoon, he called Kirk, who had already been fired. Kirk informed him that he had been in touch with the Union and McDowell wanted to meet Gil- man, which they did that afternoon. McDowell explained the procedures as to union cards and gave Gilman pam- plets and cards to distribute. Gilman took these to the plant and spoke to a number of employees on July 28 and 29, including Brey, Presley, Ellistad, Degnan, and O'Con- ner. He informed them about a meeting to be held at the tavern on July 29, after work. He also told them that he had met with the Union representative and had pamphlets for them to read and cards to sign. The five employees Gilman spoke to, as well as Kirk and Gilman, met at the tavern on July 29. He distributed the pamphlets and the membership cards and told the others that they should first read the material and then if they wished sign the cards and send them in directly to the Union. Gilman noted that in the tavern, which is just one large room, that evening were two sons of Joe Galarowicz. The following day, July 30, a Saturday on which work was scheduled to begin at 6 a.m., Gilman arrived at 6:50 a.m. He went directly to his work place, and Vince met him I I credit O'Connor in this connection as he testified in a forthright man- ner while Vince's testimony, particularly with regard to this matter, was much too glib and in response to leading questions by his counsel. His reply was also linked to his repeated statement that he had no objections to unions, a somewhat overpious declaration in the circumstances. there and said he was fired. Gilman asked if it was because he was late and Vince replied yes. Gilman then said he had not been late that much and wondered whether that was the only reason. Vince responded that there are lots of rea- sons and he should get out before he called the police. Regarding the incident of the discharge, the testimony of Vince does not vary too much from the account of Gilman. Vince claimed that he had told Gilman on Friday to make sure he's there at 6 a.m. the following morning. He stated that he saw Gilme.n come through the door that Satur- day-5 minutes late. Although Gilman said he was sorry, Vince told him he was through because he had been late too many times and took too much time off. Gilman re- fused to leave until he received a check but Vince told him he would call the sheriff if he did not leave. While Vince said he told Gilman the reason for his dis- charge was his lateress, he also testified that Gilman was terminated because of his drinking, reckless driving, dirty work area, and his attitude and behavior such as attempt- ing to carry marble tops over his head. However, as to the latter, Vince admitted that he only heard about it since Gilman was fired. C. Discussion and Analysis as to the Discharges and Alleged Interrogation Based upon the credited testimony of O'Connor, I find that Vince Galarowicz interrogated him concerning his views on unions during the course of his interview for em- ployment. Moreover, as he mentioned discharging a union troublemaker, the interrogation was coercive. By such con- duct, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. With respect to the discharges of Kirk and Gilman, there is no question that both of these employees had engaged in union activities just prior to their discharges and were in- deed the principal proponents of the Union in the plant. Kirk initiated the contact with the Union and in the 2 days prior to his discharge, spoke to many of the employees concerning the desirability of a union. During the I week following Kirk's discharge, Gilman met with the Union representative, obtained cards and printed materials which he distributed to the employees and arranged for a meeting after hours at the tavern. It is contended, however, by Re- spondent that it had no knowledge of the union activities of Kirk and Gilman, and that their discharge was caused for other reasons. While concededly there is no direct knowledge by Respondent of their activities, knowledge of union activities may be shown by circumstantial as well as direct evidence.2 Any circumstances which make it logical to infer that Respondent knew about the protected activi- ties of its employees must be considered. In a small plant where the supervision has close contact with the employees and the concerted activity is carried on in an open manner, an inference is warranted that the Company does obtain knowledge. 3 The evidence reveals a number of factors which would indicate that Respondent possessed knowledge of the union activities of the two alleged discriminatees herein. Of Farnme Inc.. 202 NLRB 409 (1973). Long Island Airport Limousine Service Corp., 468 F.2d 292 (2d Cir 1972); Niagara Gear Corporation, 225 NLRB 122 (1976); Weise Plow Weld- ing Co., Inc., 123 NLRB 616 (1959). 30 GALAP. INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED course, the credited testimony of O'Connor that Vince in- formed him that he had just fired a troublemaker, in con- nection with his interrogation of the union sentiments of O'Connor himself, tends to indicate that he was aware of Kirk's union activity when he fired him. Apart from that, there are a small number of employees at the plant (13 during the relevant times involved herein) and the manag- ers and supervisors maintained close day-to-day contact with the employees in the production areas. Noted, in addi- tion, is the fact that there was a loudspeaker system in the plant and, by keeping the switch open, people in the office could hear the conversations of employees. Also significant is the observation by the employees of Alestri closeted with Vince after he had been solicited for the Union by Kirk that morning and immediately after he had been informed by Kirk that the tavern owner was aware of Alestri having made off with too much change during lunch I day. Alestri himself admitted having been upset by this information, and indeed, the employees testified that he was incensed at this and stormed out. It could be inferred that in talking to Vince, he discussed more than just his own personal griev- ances as he testified. Another factor which may be consid- ered is the presence of two sons of Joe Galarowicz, vice president of Respondent, in the open tavern while Gilman distributed the Union cards during the employees' meeting. All of these factors, including the smallness of the plant, and most particularly, the abruptness of the discharges (Kirk the day after he spoke to employees in the plant concerning the Union, and Gilman the day after he con- ducted a meeting of the employees at the tavern), are cir- cumstances from which I conclude that the evidence is suf- ficient upon which to infer that Respondent was aware of the efforts of Kirk and Gilman on behalf of the Union. Having determined that Kirk and Gilman were engaged in union activities of which Respondent was aware, the issue is then whether they were terminated because of it. Kirk was fired on Saturday, July 23, after putting in a full day's work and there was no particular incident which had occurred that would have precipitated his discharge. In his testimony, Vince merely said that he thought things had gone far enough, that Kirk was late too many times, fre- quently because of his drinking and that he was going to have to let him go. Kirk had just completed a 2-day sus- pension that Wednesday, presumably because he had tak- en the preceding Monday off claiming to be ill. Vince also made mention of Kirk being too noisy around the plant when he returned from his suspension. Of course, that was during the time when Kirk was talking and discussing the possibility of a union with the employees. On cross-exami- nation, however, Vince admitted that he might have told Kirk that he was a troublemaker. During this testimony, Vince expanded on the reasons for his discharge of Kirk, and as noted above, stated that he had fired Kirk for his lateness, his drinking, his work attitude and his dirty area. Similarly with respect to Gilman, who was fired on Sat- urday, July 30, upon his arrival at work approximately 45 minutes late, Vince testified that although he told Gilman he was discharging him for his lateness, he also fired him because of his drinking, reckless driving, dirty work area, and general behavior. I am not persuaded by any of the reasons advanced by Respondent for the discharge of either of the alleged dis- criminatees. There is no question that both of them had been late or even absent many times during the course of their employment. However, the same was true of many of the other employees according to the records of the Com- pany submitted in evidence. The fact is that none were ever disciplined and certainly not discharged for their lack of punctuality. Nor does it appear from the record that either Kirk or Gilman were the only employees who drank, since the tavern was a regular meeting place for many of them both during lunchtime and after work. It may also be not- ed that these poor work habits, concerning which Vince complained bitterly in his testimony, did not deter him from giving Kirk and Gilman wage increases totaling $1 during the course of their approximately I year's employ- ment. It is well settled that the close conjunction in time be- tween the onset of union activity and the discharge are important factors in determining the motivation of an em- ployer.4 In this case nothing is more vividly etched than the factor of the time element. Thus, Kirk returned to work from his suspension on July 21, spoke to the employees and discussed with them the prospect of union on that day and July 22, and was then discharged on July 23. During the following week Gilman took up the cause of promoting the Union and spoke to the employees and arranged a meeting on July 29 after work during which he distributed authorization cards. The following morning he too was dis- charged. I find therefore, in all the circumstances, that the Respondent discharged Kirk and Gilman for their union activities rather than for their poor attendance record and other reasons advanced by Respondent. Accordingly, I conclude that by this conduct Respondent violated Sec- tion 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. D. The No-Solicitation Rules At the hearing General Counsel amended the complaint to allege that Respondent on or about November 9, 1977, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by establishing an illegal no-solicitation or distribution clause in an employee hand- book. It is uncontroverted that on November 9, 1977, Respon- dent published and distributed an employee handbook containing various rules and regualtions with respect to employee conduct. Among other things this publication contained the following paragraphs which proscribed the following employee conduct: Posting, defacing or removing notices, signs or writ- ing without authorization of management. Distributing or posting literature, illustrated, written or printed matter of any description on company premises without authorization of management. Debating, agitating or soliciting during working hours or in such a manner during lunch periods as to disturb others. Unnecessary shouting or demonstra- tions whereby distracting of others from work. 4 See N L RB v. 7ru-l.ine Metal Producis Co, 324 F.2d 614 (6lh Cir. 19631 cert. denied 377 U.S. 906 (1964). 31 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The rules as quoted above are overly broad in that they prohibit distribution of literature of any description on company premises, making no distinction as to what are nonwork areas, and also prohibit solicitation including during lunch periods. These rules are not only overly broad but also ambiguous and consequently are invlaid.5 By pro- mulgating and maintaining these rules, Respondent vio- lated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. IV IHE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACIICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section II111, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Re- spondent described in section I, above, have a close, inti- mate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com- merce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. v THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirma- tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent discriminatorily dis- charged the employees as set forth above, I shall recom- mend that Respondent be ordered to offer immediate and full reinstatement to Kirk and Gilman to their former posi- tions or, if such positions are no longer available, to sub- stantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges; and make each of them whole for any loss of earnings or other monetary loss each may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him, less interim earnings, if any, plus interest to be computed in the manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corpora- tion, 231 NLRB 651 (1977).6 CONCLUSIONS I. 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 meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discriminatorily discharging employees Ronald Kirk and Lon Gilman, Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 4. By coercively interrogating an applicant for employ- ment concerning his union sympathies, Respondent vio- lated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. 5. By promulgating and maintaining invalid no-solicita- tion and no-distribution rules, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Times Publishing (ompany, 231 NLRB 207 (1977); Davlin Inc, 198 NLRB 281 (1972). 6 See, generally. Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER 7 The Respondent, Galar Industries, Incorporated, Cot- tage Grove, Wisconsin, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: I. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in, or activities on behalf of Sheet Metal Workers' International Association Local Union 565, affiliated with the Sheet Metal Workers' Inter- national Association, or any other labor organization, by discharging employees or otherwise discriminating against them in any manner with regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any terms or conditions of employment be- cause of their union activities. (b) Coercively interrogating applicants for employment concerning their union sympathies. (c) Promulgating and maintaining invalid no-solicita- tion and no-distribution rules. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaran- teed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef- fectuate the purposes and policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Ronald Kirk and Lon Gilman immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions or, if those jobs no ionger exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights previous- ly enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay due to the violation against them in accordance with the man- ner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay- roll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports and all other records neces- sary to analyze the amount of backpay due under terms of this Order. (c) Post at its Cottage Grove, Wisconsin, plant, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 8 Copies of said notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re- gion 30, after being duly signed by the Company's author- ized representative shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea- sonable steps shall be taken by the Company to insure that 7In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings. conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. s In the event that this Order is enforced by ajudgment of a United States Court of Appeals. the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judg- ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 32 GALAR INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 30 in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing at which all sides had a chance to give evidence, it has been found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and we have been ordered to post this notice. WE WILL NOT coercively question applicants for em- ployment concerning their sympathies or activities. WE WILL NOT maintain invalid no-solicitation and no-distribution rules. WE WILL NOT discharge employees because they have engaged in union activities. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of rights under Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL offer Ron Kirk and Lon Gilman immedi- ate and full reinstatement to their former positions or, if such positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their senior- ity or other rights and privileges, and WE WILL make them whole for any loss of pay or benefits they may have suffered by reasons of our discrimination against them. All our employees are free to engage in union activities on behalf of Sheet Metal Workers' International Associa- tion Local Union 565, affiliated with Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, or any other labor organization, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collec- tive bargaining or other mutual aid and protection. Our employees are free to refrain from any and all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affect- ed by an agreement requiring membership in a labor orga- nization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. GALAR INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED 33