General Motors Corp.

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD General Motors Corporation and Martin Andrews and David Sole. Cases 7-CA-12878, 7-CA-13087, and 7-CA- 2954 October 20, 1978 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS. MURPHY. AND TRUESDALE On July 27, 1978, Administrative Law Judge Rich- ard L. Denison issued the attached Decision 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 2 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, General Motors Corpo- ration, Detroit, Michigan, its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, except that the attached notice is substituted for that of the Administrative Law Judge.3 APPENDIX NoricE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT supend or otherwise discriminate against our employees with regard to the hire and tenure of their employment or any other term or condition of employment for engaging in union activity or concerted activity for their mutual aid or protection, or in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights as guaranteed in Sec- tion 7 of the Act. WE WILL NOT instruct employees to stop soli- citing signatures during nonworking time on pe- titions to recall union area committeemen. WE WILL NOT attempt to physically confiscate employee petitions to recall union area commit- teemen. WE WIL L NOT threaten employees with dis- charge for advising fellow employees of their right to consult their union area committeemen concerning filing grievances against the Compa- ny. WE WILL rescind the notices of disciplinary suspension issued to Bruce Venable on March 24, David Sole on March 23 and April 9, and Martin Andrews on March 23 and June 8, 1976, and expunge any references to these suspensions from their personnel files. WE WIL L reimburse Bruce Venable, David Sole, and Martin Andrews for the pay they lost during their periods of suspension and make them whole for any loss of earnings, plus inter- est. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION DECISION The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to over- rule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard DrO Wall Products., Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings, At one point in his Decision the Administrative Law Judge inadvertently referred to April 19, 1976, as the date on which David Sole was accused of violating company regulations by sitting on the trunklid of an automobile to perform his work. The record establishes that April 9 is the correct date. 2 In the Conclusions of Law section of his Decision, par. 3. the Adminis- trative Law Judge erroneously concluded that Martin Andrews was sus- pended on April 9. 1976. The record establishes that the date this suspension occurred was March 23, 1976. The Administrative Law Judge inadvertently failed to conform the no- tice with his recommended Order. We shall correct the notice accordingly STATEMENT OF THE CASE RICHARD L DENISON. Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard at Detroit, Michigan, on August 23 and 24, 1977. The charge in Case 7-CA-12878 was filed by Martin D. Andrews on March 30, 1976, and amended February 22, 1977. The charges in Cases 7-CA-12954 and 13087 were filed by David Sole and Martin D. Andrews, re- spectively, on April 27 and June 15, 197 6 .' The consoli- dated complaint, issued May 4, 1977, alleges that the Re- spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by interfering with the efforts of Martin Andrews, David Sole, All dates are in 1976 unless otherwise specified. 34 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION and Bruce Venable to solicit signatures, during nonwork- ing time, on a petition to recall their union area committee- man; by suspending Andrews, Sole, and Venable because they engaged in union and protected concerted activities; and by threatening Andrews with discharge for advising a fellow employee that she had a right to file a grievance. The Respondent's answer denies the allegations of unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. Upon the entire record in the case, including my consid- eration of the briefs and my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION At all times material herein, the Respondent, General Motors Corporation, a Delaware corporation, has main- tained its principal office and place of business at 3044 West Grand Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan. The Respon- dent maintains numerous plants and places of business throughout the United States of America, including several plants in the State of Michigan. The Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein, engaged in the manu- facture, sale and distribution of automobiles and related products. The Respondent's Fisher Body Division, Fleet- wood Plant, located in Detroit, Michigan, is the only facil- ity of the Respondent involved in this proceeding. During the calendar year ending December 31, 1976, a representa- tive period, the Respondent in the course and conduct of its business operations at its Michigan plants, manufac- tured, sold, and distributed products valued in excess of $1 million which were shipped directly to points outside the State of Michigan. I find that the Respondent is now, and has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II LABOR ORGANIZATION Local 15, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of Amer- ica (UAW), is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The Charging Parties and employee Bruce Venable work on the assembly line of the Respondent's Fisher Body Di- vision, Fleetwood Plant, installing vinyl tops on Cadillac automobiles. As is readily apparent from the record as a whole, these employees are dissidents of Local 15, Interna- tional Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricul- tural Implement Workers of America (UAW), the lawfully recognized collective-bargaining agent. The incidents which give rise to the allegations contained in the General Counsel's complaint in this matter involve these employ- ees' dissident and grievance-related activities. Credible background evidence was introduced to show that during the month of February 1976, Bruce Venable and his working partner, Willie Sharp, began their efforts to obtain a sufficient number of signatures on a petition to recall their union area committeeman Norm Woolum. This initial attempt failed when Foreman Dave West confiscat- ed the petition from the hands of employee Webb in Venable's presence. Venable testified that thereafter, dur- ing the latter part of March, he became involved in circu- lating a second recall petition. On March 17 Venable was obtaining signatures at the break wagon during the 1:30 p.m. break when Foreman Albert G. Walko approached him and said that he didn't want Venable petitioning in that area. Venable left. On the following day, after the break buzzer had announced the commencement of break, and after the production line had stopped, Venable entered Walko's area again and approached employee Guy (Chico) Simmons who was still sitting in a car in which he had just completed the installation of a sun shade. Venable's pur- pose in contacting Simmons was to invite him to a party at his home, but as he attempted to hand Simmons a piece of paper containing his address and phone number, and be- fore he could declare his purpose, Walko suddenly ap- peared and bumped Venable up against the body of the car as he hastily snatched the paper, stating "Give me the peti- tion." Venable grabbed the paper back from Walko, and walked away in the direction of his own section, while Wal- ko yelled for him to stop. Venable kept walking until his foreman, Jim Dex, accompanied by Foreman Claude Caf- fee, instructed him to stop and to pay attention to Walko. Venable was then taken to Labor Relations where, after telling his version, the Company offered to drop a pro- posed 30-day suspension for refusing to comply with a supervisor's orders, if Venable would drop his intention to file a grievance against Walko for pushing him. The matter was left open for further consideration, but on March 24 the suspension was imposed when Venable insisted that his committeeman write the grievance against Walko. Supervisor Albert G. Walko admitted that he had heard rumors that a petition was being circulated around the plant and that he was curious to know what it was that Venable was handing to "Chico" Simmons, He testified that the production line was moving at the time of the incident, but qualified his testimony by stating that he might be wrong. According to Walko, the automobile in which "Chico" was working was a four-door sedan, and that he entered the automobile through the rear door and said, "Let me have the paper." He denied attempting to take the paper from Venable who immediately left the area ignoring his repeated instructions to stop and talk about the matter. Walko insisted that his curiosity concerning Venable's activities was prompted by a desire to avoid dis- ruptions in his department. Walko's testimony is contradicted significantly by the testimony of Kotan Supervisor Dex, and by Chico Sim- mons, who appeared as a witness for both the Respondent and the General Counsel. Dex admitted that the produc- tion line was stopped prior to the time that Dex attempted to stop Venable, who was then heading back to his work area. Dex also stated that at the time Walko first ap- proached him about the incident, Walko stated that he be- lieved Venable was passing some kind of paper around. Simmons testified that the automobile in which he was 35 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD working at the time of the incident was a two-door El Do- rado or Coupe de Ville and that Walko approached them from the front of the car, not the rear. While the produc- tion line was stopped Venable and Andrews approached him with the paper which Walko then attempted to grab. About a half hour later Walko returned and asked Sim- mons if the paper was the petition. Simmons also testified that Walko did not push Venable but may have bumped him in his effort to get the paper. Simmons impressed me as an honest and forthright witness who told the truth de- spite the fact that his testimony did not totally corroborate either side. I find that Walko did not push Venable as he testified. However, I credit the remainder of Venable's tes- timony since it is corroborated in all important aspects by that of Simmons. I further find that Venable's suspension was motivated in substantial part by his activities in circu- lating the petition to recall Committeeman Woolum. It is clear from Walko's testimony and that of Simmons, that Walko knew of the existence of the petition prior to the Venable incident and viewed its circulation as disruptive and sought to suppress its circulation. The evidence shows that Walko believed the paper containing information about the party was the petition. This conclusion is rein- forced by the fact that the disciplinary notice was not is- sued to Venable until March 24, the day after Andrews and Sole received suspensions involving their picketing activi- ties at Cobo Hall, as discussed more fully below. Nor is this conclusion shaken by the emphasis given on page 19 of Respondent's brief to the assertion that the Charging Par- ties had a history of militancy and political, as well as la- bor, activism. I find that the Respondent violated Section 8(aX)() of the Act as alleged in paragraph 8(a) of the com- plaint, and by attempting to grab what Supervisor Walko thought was the petition from employees Venable, An- drews, and Simmons as alleged in paragraph 8(b). I further find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by suspending Venable on March 24 because of his union and concerted activities. David Sole, a signer of the ill-fated first petition, became an active sponsor of the second recall petition, when he became convinced that his fellow employees were dissatis- fied with Woolum's performance and desired to have him removed. Thereafter he participated in efforts to obtain employees' signatures on the petition. On March 23, during the afternoon wagon break period, Sole, accompanied by Martin Andrews, proceeded to the break wagon near Walko's section for the purpose of obtaining the signatures of employees in that area. As Sole pursued his efforts to obtain additional signatures, Repair Area Supervisor Claude E. Caffee rushed over and snatched the petition from Sole's hands, whereupon Martin Andrews grabbed it from Chaffee, and returned it to Sole who stuffed it down the front of his pants. Shortly thereafter both men were taken to Labor Relations where they received disciplinary reprimands and a I-week suspenison for absenteeism. Al- though Solo's disciplinary slip states that the penalty was imposed for his unexcused absences on March 19 and 22, Andrews was disciplined only for his absence from work on March 19. Both men had turned in disability certificates from their doctors stating the nature of their ailments, av- erring that they were "totally incapacitated," beginning on March 19, and authorizing their return to work on March 23. David Sole returned to work, following his suspension, on March 31. On that day, before work, he assisted in handing out copies of a publication entitled "The Fleet- wood Reporter," which he helped write, at the plant gate. The March 31 edition of this publication is essentially a leaflet which castigated management for its alleged efforts to interfere with the circulation of the petition to recall Woolum, and for management's treatment of Venable, Sole, and Andrews with respect to the Walko and Caffee incidents. On April 19 General Foreman Dwight Henley accused Sole of sitting on the trunklid of an automobile while trimming the vinyl top, in violation of a recently in- stituted policy designed to prevent scratches. Sole insisted that he was only leaning across the trunk, but Henley and Kotan Area Supervisor Jim Dex insisted that he was sitting on it. Sole's foreman, Ron Abbas, was summoned, and Sole again denied that he had been sitting on the lid. Al- though Sole pointed out that another employee nearby was at that moment sitting on a trunklid without admonish- ment, Sole was taken to Labor Relations, issued another disciplinary reprimand for "refusal to obey orders of super- vision," and suspended for 2 weeks. 2 The complaint alleges that in May Supervisor R. Kirk threatened Andrews with discharge if he continued to ad- vise fellow employees concerning their rights to file griev- ances against the Respondent. According to Andrews' credited testimony, one day during the beginning of May, while working on the Kotan line, Andrews observed Fore- man Dave West yelling at an employee named Pat. An- drews went over and advised her that she should put in a "committee call" over the incident when Kirk approached and said that he didn't like agitators. Andrews asked what he was talking about. Kirk replied that Andrews knew "damn well" what he was talking about, and said that he could throw him out any time he wanted to. Kirk admitted that what irritated him was that Andrews kept advising Pat Ferris to call her committeeman, and that he responded "I don't like instigators." He denied saying anything else. Since Kirk's testimony corroborates the major portion of Andrews' version, 1 credit Andrews and find that Kirk did threaten Andrews as alleged in the complaint. Thus, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Andrews referred Kirk's threat to the area grievance committee. A day or two later Kirk came to Andrews and told him to get a glue rag and follow him. Andrews asked for some gloves, which employees use to handle glue, but Kirk insisted that Andrews simply get a rag and come with him. Kirk and Andrews walked toward the other end of the plant, as Committeeman Norm Woolum followed. When they arrived, Kirk pointed to an automobile on which glue 21 do not credit the testimony of Supervisor Dex who stated that he and Henley looked at the other jobs and saw no other employees sitting on trunklids. Henley completely ignored the topic during his testimony. Abbas' testimony tends to corroborate Sole's. Abbas carefully avoided stating whether or not he had actually seen other employees sitting on trunklids. who thereafter did not receive discipline. but he admitted that during their interview Sole insisted that other employees were doing so at that moment. Abbas' response was that Sole should just be concerned with himself, not with other people, and that Abbas did not interfere if an employee worked for another foreman. I credit Sole's testimony in this respect. 36 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION had been sprayed on the left quarter. Kotan glue is used to attach the vinyl tops to the automobiles. Kirk accused An- drews of spraying the glue on that portion of the car. An- drews denied it. Woolum supported Andrews. The argu- ment ended with Kirk taking Andrews to Labor Relations where he received 30 days off for refusing Kirk's alleged order to remove the glue. The penalty was imposed on a Thursday; on Friday Andrews was notified that the matter had been settled and that he was to report to work on Monday. Less than a week later, on June 8, Andrews received another disciplinary notice suspending him for 2 weeks. On this occasion Kirk instructed Andrews to put a salvaged vinyl top on a car. Occasionally, when a different color top is desired by a customer, replacements will be made. To reduce waste the top which is removed is reused, but is more difficult to put on because of the residue of old glue and the wrinkles and stretches which ensue from the re- moval of the top. This particular top, which Kirk instruct- ed Andrews to apply, was crumpled into a ball, resulting in wrinkles and sealer smears. Andrews stated that he would rather not put it on because he feared he would be penal- ized with time off for poor workmanship. Kirk said not to worry about it and repeated his instructions for Andrews to put it on. After the top had been applied and the car had moved down the line, Andrews was cited for poor work- manship, taken to Labor Relations, and suspended. At the outset of the disciplinary interview he was cited for not punching the opera light holes in the top, but this criticism was dropped when it was discovered that holes were not supposed to be punched on that particular model. Next, Andrews was criticized because the top had wrinkles and was smeared with black sealer in the area of the rear win- dows, a condition which he argued was clearly attributable to its having been used before. Concerning the March 23 incident involving Supervisor Claude E. Caffee, David Sole, and Martin Andrews, Caffee admitted he knew Sole and Venable were circulating a peti- tion to recall Committeeman Woolum, and that he had reported to General Foreman Paul Barlick that he had seen Sole engaging in this activity at the break wagon during wagon break. He testified that he knew the names of other employees involved in this activity and also reporteo them. He denied that he ever attempted to get the paper from Sole, but admitted having asked Sole to give him the paper at the coffee wagon. According to Caffee, as Sole started to hand him the paper, Roger Mason took it. Then, according to Caffee, he stated that they were passing a petition around and that they should go with him, but that the two men ignored the instruction and proceeded back down the aisle. The following excerpt from Caffee's testimony per- suades me that the testimony of Sole and Andrews should be credited, since it shows that Caffee's purpose was to interfere with the employees' legitimate union and protect- ed concerted activities. This excerpt also contains the only evidence placed in this record concerning the Respondent's no-solicitation and no-distribution rules. Q. I see. Why, is it against the rules to pass out a petition? A. It's not against the rules to pass out a piece of paper, no. But it is against the rules for certain things to be solicited. There is no soliciting in the plant. Q. And what are those things? A. There are several things being solicited and you're not supposed to solicit anything as far as col- lecting money-- Q. -But you didn't think this was collecting money, you thought it was a petition to get rid of a union committeeman, didn't you? A. Right. Q. Is that against the rules? A. That is not against the rules to have a recall, no. Q. I see. Then why didn't you want-why did you tell him he couldn't do it? A. I didn't tell him he couldn't do it. Q. You said zome with me? If that [is] a petition, come with me? A. That's right. Q. Where did you want to take him? A. I wanted to take him and discuss what he was passing out, what was he collecting. Q. Okay, but although-you knew what it was? A. Right. I find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)() of the Act as alleged in paragraph 8(c) of the complaint. Later on March 23 Sole and Andrews were called to the Labor Relations offices where they each received I-week disciplinary suspensions for unexcused absences. It is sig- nificant that while Sole was disciplined for being absent on March 19 and 22, Andrews, who was also absent on both dates, was disciplined only for being absent on March 19, the date on which he and Sole picketed a UAW meeting at the Cobo Hall convention center in downtown Detroit. The Respondent contends that Sole and Andrews were sus- pended only because the Company was concerned with absenteeism in the plant on that day, and Sole and An- drews were observed participating in the Cobo Hall dem- onstration at a time when, according to their doctors' certi- fications, they were totally incapacitated. 3 Sole admitted being at Cobo Hall for an hour or two on the morning of March 19. Andrews testified that he went to Cobo Hall on Friday, March 19, for about an hour to hear what was being said, and that he walked around the Ford auditorium to where the picketing was being conducted, but denied that he participated in this activity. I find that Andrews' answers to questions concerning his Cobo Hall activities were somewhat vague and to the extent his testimony dif- fers from the description of his Cobo Hall activities given by the Respondent's supervisors, I credit their testimony instead of his. However, the record shows that although Sole and Andrews did not follow the applicable contractu- al procedures for obtaining time off for union activity, and, instead misused medical leave for this purpose, the Re- spondent seized on their abuse of the medical leave proce- dures in order to retaliate against them because of their dissident activities. This finding is substantiated, not only by the timing of the discipline and its placement in the 'Neither employee had applied for an) type of leave covered b) the provisions specified in the collective-bargaining agreement. 37 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sequence of events comprising a pattern of discrimination against these employees, but also to a great extent by the testimony of Respondent's supervisors. At the time of the Cobo Hall incident Ronald Tyree was Kotan area supervisor. He had been Sole's supervisor at one time, but at the time of the Cobo Hall activity Sole's immediate supervisor was Ronald Abbas. Andrews' super- visor at the time of the Cobo Hall incident was Jack Mc- Neely. Albert G. Walko supervised neither of the two em- ployees at the time. His only logical relationship with the events described hereafter was his familiarity with the dis- sident employees' activities which occurred in his work area, and his ability to identify employees at Cobo Hall as having participated in those activities. John Grogan was a labor relations representative for the Respondent at the time, and Dwight Henley was general foreman. According to John Grogan, on March 19 Hardware De- partment Superintendent Carl Kevwitch "suggested" that Grogan, Walko, and Tyree drive to downtown Detroit to Cobo Hall "to see if he recognized any of our employees." Grogan admitted that they knew that there was to be a demonstration and that they probably discussed in ad- vance the employees they thought they might see there. Tyree testified that Kevwitch said, ". . he thought that Mr. Sole and some of them might be down there. He want us to go and see if they were down there." Although in his testimony Grogan implied that the reason for the proposed surveillance was a high rate of absenteeism that day, Tyree testified that Kevwitch gave no reason for the proposed observation. The "suggestion" was accepted, and after the three supervisors "volunteered", they drove to Cobo Hall where they identified Andrews and Sole, marching in a picket line in front of the hall, carrying a large banner. After they returned to the plant, they were sent to Cobo Hall a second time. In Tyree's words, ". . . to make sure it was the right people and everything-we were seeing." The record shows very clearly that the inordinate amount of time spent by the Respondent's supervisors in observing the activities outside Cobo Hall was not directed toward learning the identities of all employees improperly absent that day, but was carried out for the purpose of identifying members of the dissident union group. Thus, in testifying, the Respondent's supervisors could not rtmem- ber the names of any employees present outside Cobo Hall who were not members of this group. Further, General Foreman Dwight Henley testified that he couldn't recall any problem of absenteeism on Friday, March 19, or whether he talked with Abbas or any of his supervisors about absenteeism during the period March 19 through March 23. It is also established from the testimony of Ab- bas and McNeely that Henley reported to them on March 19 that Andrews and Sole had been picketing at Cobo Hall. The Respondent's supervisors could not have been checking the validity of Sole's and Andrews' doctors' cer- tificates since they were not presented to their supervisors until the morning of March 23. 1 therefore find and con- clude that when the Respondent's action in suspending Andrews and Sole is considered against the background of its prior efforts to interfere with the soliciting of signatures for the recall petition circulated by the dissident group, it is established that the Respondent seized upon the two em- ployees' departure from the contractual leave procedures as a pretext to retaliate against them for their union and concerted activities. Although the Respondent raises the issue in its brief, there can be no serious question, under the circumstances presented here, that the dissident em- ployees were engaged in both union and protected concert- ed activities, and I so find. I therefore find that the Re- spondent violated Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act by suspending Sole and Andrews for I week on March 23 as alleged in paragraph 8(d) of the complaint. Finally I find that the Respondent further violated Sec- tion 8(a)(I) and (3) by suspending Sole and Andrews on April 9 and June 8, respectively. I credit their testimony concerning these events since the testimony of the Respon- dent's supervisors involved tends to corroborate rather than refute their versions. For example, Sole's testimony that he attempted to direct Abbas' attention to the fact that other employees were sitting on trunklids without interfer- ence, while he was being disciplined for the same activity, is corroborated by Abbas' admission that Sole in fact raised this point during their interview. Moreover, Abbas' admitted response to the effect that Sole should only be concerned with himself right then and not what other fore- men do with respect to their employees, is not only ludi- crous under the circumstances but, in addition, evinces clearly that the real reason Sole received the April 9 sus- pension lay elsewhere. The Board has often held that the exposition of a clearly spurious reason for imposed disci- pline may in appropriate circumstances be strong evidence of a discriminatory motive. I find this principle applicable here, and find that when the Respondent's action is consid- ered in the light of the entire record, the Respondent vio- lated Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act in suspending Sole on April 9. Andrews' June 8 suspension for making scrap unneces- sarily and careless workmanship involved Supervisor Ron- ald L. Kirk. It followed soon after Andrews' confrontation with Kirk over the Pat Ferris incident in which, after An- drews encouraged Ferris to grieve to her committeeman, Kirk responded that he did not like agitators (or in his words "instigators") and said that he could throw Andrews out any time he so desired. When this incident is consid- ered in conjunction with the events leading to Andrews' suspension, it is clear that through Kirk's involvement in that suspension, he was simply carrying out his threat. Thus, despite Andrews' protestation to Kirk that the pro- posed installation of the used vinyl top, considering its poor condition, would only lead to a citation for poor workmanship, Kirk insisted that Andrews install it. Clearly the outcome was a foregone conclusion, as Andrews antici- pated. Finally, Kirk's efforts, in his testimony, to convert the incident into an outright refusal on the part of Andrews to clean the glue from the installed top, is plainly a fabrica- tion as indicated by Andrews in his testimony. It is incon- ceivable that if Andrews had in fact refused Kirk's direct order to perform legitimate work, the Company would then have omitted utilizing Andrews' action as one of the written bases for its June 8 disciplinary action. It is there- fore clear that the real reason that Andrews was suspended on June 8 was his protected union and concerted activities, and I so find. I find that the Respondent violated Section 38 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 8(aXI) and (3) of the Act as alleged in paragraph 8(h) of the complaint, and that it violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act as alleged in paragraph 8(g). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By suspending David Sole on March 23 and April 9, Bruce Venable on March 24, and Martin Andrews on April 9 and June 8, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act. 4. By instructing employees not to solicit signatures on a petition to recall their Union's coommitteeman, by at- tempting to physically confiscate these petitions, and by threatening employees with discharge for advising fellow employees concerning their right to grieve to their commit- teeman, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)( ) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 6. The Respondent did not violate the Act in any re- spect other than those specifically found. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer- tain unfair labor practices, I find it unnecessary to order that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom, and that it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. The Respondent having discriminatorily suspended Bruce Venable, David Sole, and Martin Andrews, as found above, I find it necessary to order that the Respondent reimburse them their backpay for the periods of their sus- pensions, backpay to be computed with interest as pre- scribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977).' Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, upon the entire record, and pursuant to Sectioa 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER The Respondent, General Motors Corporation, Detroit, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: i. Cease and desist from: 4See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). 5In 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 Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. (a) Suspending or otherwise discriminating against em- ployees with regard to the hire and tenure of their employ- ment or any other term or condition of employment for engaging in union activity or concerted activity for their mutual aid or protection, or in any other manner interfer- ing with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. (b) Instructing employees to stop soliciting signatures. during nonworking time, on petitions to recall union area committeemen. (c) Attempting to physically confiscate employee peti- tions to recall union area committeemen. (d) Threatening employees with discharge for advising fellow employees of their right to consult their union area committeemen concerning filing grievances against the Company. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Reimburse Bruce Venable, David Sole, and Martin Andrews for the pay they lost during their periods of sus- pension, as set forth in this Decision, and make them whole for any loss of earnings in the manner set forth herein in "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 all other records necessary to ana- lyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (c) Rescind the notices of disciplinary suspension issued to Bruce Venable, David Sole, and Martin Andrews for the periods set forth in this Decision, and expunge any refer- ence to these suspensions from their personnel files. (d) Post at its Fisher Body Division, Fleetwood Plant, located in Detroit, Michigan, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 6 Copies of said notice, on forms pro- vided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of Respon- dent, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereaf- ter, in conspicuous places, including all places where no- tices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said no- tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other ma- terial. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writ- ing, 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 is dismissed in all respects other than those specifically found. '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 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." 39