Research Designing Service, Inc.

RESEARCH DESIGNING SERVICE, INC. 211 I further recommend the dismissal of the complaint insofar as it alleges that by discharging Robert Marcotte , the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act. APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT coercively or unlawfully interrogate our employees regarding their union membership , activities, or desires. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with shutting down our plant or with other economic sanctions to discourage their union affiliation or adherence. WE WILL NOT in any like or relatated manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form labor organizations, to join or assist Textile Workers Union of America, AFL- CIO, or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through representa- tives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any or all such activities. All our employees are free to become or remain or to refrain from becoming or remaining members of Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. GONIC MANUFACTURING COMPANY, DIVISION OF HAMPSHIRE WOOLEN COMPANY, Employer Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 24 School Street, Boston 8 , Massachusetts, Telephone No. Lafayette 3-8100, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Research Designing Service, Inc. and Local 155, International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Imple- ment Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 7-CA-3623 and 7-CA-36203(2). March 7, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On October 10, 1962, Trial Examiner John H. Eadie issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. The Trial Examiner also found that the Re- spondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended that such allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. 141 NLRB No. 19. 708-006-64-vol. 141-15 212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Board i 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 briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner with the modifications noted hereafter. On February 5, 1962, the Union z sent the Respondent a letter claim- ing to represent a majority of its employees, and listed 32 employees as members of an "organizing" committee. In letters dated Febru- ary 8 and 19, the Union sent to the Respondent the names of 26 other employees on the committee. Beginning in early March 1962, the Respondent laid off approximately 39 employees of whom 23 were employees named in the Union's letters. The Respondent is alleged to have discriminatorily discharged or laid off 27 employees, and to have interrogated employees concerning their attitude and activities with respect to the Union and threatened them with economic reprisals or promises of benefits, in violation of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act. The Trial Examiner found that 10 of the 27 employees in issue were laid off for discriminatory reasons and recommended dismissal of allegations with respect to the 17 other employees. He also found that certain statements and conduct of Sirko, Manderfield, and Priebe, admittedly supervisors within the meaning of the Act, constituted violations of Section 8 (a) (1). The Trial Examiner did not pass on whether the statements and conduct of Roy Leonard, Sr., Hobert Payne, and Richard Gastaldo, constituted violations because he con- cluded they were not supervisors. The General Counsel contends, inter alia, that: (1) Leonard, Payne, and Gastaldo are supervisors within the meaning of the Act and certain conduct attributed to them was violative of Section 8(a) (1) ; and (2) since the Respondent was found to have a discriminatory motive in its selection of employees for layoff, all the alleged dis- criminatees who were listed as union adherents 3 should be found to have been discriminatorily laid off. 1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [ Members Rodgers, Fanning, and Brown]. 2 Local 155, International Union, United Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural Imple- ment Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO. $ At the close of the hearing, the Trial Examiner granted Respondent's motion to dis- miss those allegations of discriminatory layoff with respect to Stanfest, Wilson, Shugar, and John Ulivi because such individuals were not on the list of employees submitted to the Respondent as members of an organizing committee The General Counsel excepts to such dismissal and contends that their discharges were an attempt to mask the dis- criminatory motive for the other discharges . In view of our subsequent finding that there was a valid economic reduction in force and the absence of any evidence that these in- dividuals engaged in any union activity known to the Respondent, we affirm the dismissal of allegations with respect to these four men. RESEARCH DESIGNING SERVICE, INC. 213 As to the alleged supervisory status of Leonard, Gastaldo, and Payne, we note that all three had authority to assign men to jobs and/or machines and that such authority involved the use of independ- ent judgment. Moreover, Leonard was in charge of 24 men, Gastaldo directed the work of approximately 8 employees, and Payne "super- vised" some 20 employees. While it appears that none of these indi- viduals had the authority to hire, discharge, or effectively recommend such action, an individual to be a supervisor within the meaning of the Act need have only one of the indicia of a supervisor enumerated in Section 2(11) of the Act4 Inasmuch as the record establishes that these three exercised independent judgment in assigning men to jobs, we find, in agreement with the General Counsel, that they are super- visors within the meaning of the Act. We also agree with the General Counsel that Leonard, Gastaldo, and Payne engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(a) (1).5 Em- ployee Richter testified that Leonard asked him if he was "with the Union." Another employee, Aszurek, testified that shortly after his name had been turned in to the Respondent as a union organizer, Leon- ard approached him and stated, "Steve, you surprise me. Boy, am I going to throw the at you." Employee Painter testified that Leonard told him that if the Union ever got in the shop he would see to it that he would be the first one to get fired. Employee Ligon testified that on several occassions Leonard asked him if he were "still organiz- ing." Two employees, Wilson and Stepke, testified that Gastaldo asked them to sign a letter disavowing the Union and informed them they would keep their jobs longer or be assured of steady work for 2 years if they did so. Another employee, Szawronski, testified that Gastaldo questioned him about his signing a union card and then demoted him to less desirable work because he had signed s Finally, employee Kowalski testified that Payne queried him on why he had Section 2 ( 11) of the Act states: The term "supervisor" means any individual having authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer , suspend, lay off, recall , promote, discharge , assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend such action , if in connection with the fore- going, the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment. 5 Neither Leonard, Gastaldo , nor Payne testified at the hearing. Thus, testimony of employees as to their conduct stands uncontradicted on the record. °At pages 151-152 of the record , Szawronski testified that Gastaldo questioned him as follows: "`Roman [ Szawronski ] you make union card V" and I tell him, "Yes, Who tell you 7" "Oh, somebody tell me you make union card You want Union?" and I tell him, "Yes, I want union. Why?" I tell him, "That's my business, why?" He tells me, ".. . You want union, I give you union . I give you cleanup for now!" He give me broom and tell me, "Okay, Roman . You had good job with this company. Union, you have steady job clean up floor." I tell him, "that's okay. I take this job too." At another point Szawronski testified Gastaldo asked him prior to his layoff "why you no take union card back and bring to him" giving the impression that if he abandoned the Union he would not be laid off. 214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD joined the Union. We think it clear that these interrogations of these employees as to their union activities and interests, and the threats ,of discharge and discriminatory treatment, constituted interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Section 8(a) (1), and we so find. As to the layoff or discharge of the employees in issue, we accept the Trial Examiner's finding that there was an economic justification for Respondent's reduction of its employee complement. However, we are convinced that Respondent selected certain individuals for in- clusion in the layoffs because of their adherence to the Union. Bear- ing generally upon Respondent's motivation, we note the numerous unlawful acts of threats and interrogations directed against the em- ployees by Respondent's supervisory personnel, including General Manager Sirko. In particular, we note Sirko's statement to employee King that it would not surprise him if Respondent's president "wouldn't lay all of the men off that had their names on the [Union] list," and Gastaldo's efforts to get employees to repudiate the Union under threat of losing their jobs. When the factors noted below are weighed in the light of this pattern of illegal conduct, it is apparent to us that Respondent was unlawfully motivated in making certain layoffs. But it does not follow, as the General Counsel would have us find, that because the Respondent, under the cover of its economic situation, sought to weaken the Union's position by laying off union adherents, that every union adherent caught in the layoff was auto- matically a discriminatee. Respondent did have a legitimate reason for a reduction in force, and it is probable that some of the individuals would have been laid off even if there had been no union on the scene. Whether or not a particular individual has suffered discrimination must turn not simply on whether he was a union member, but on a number of other factors. In determining whether an alleged dis- criminatee was in fact selected for layoff for antiunion reasons, we have taken into consideration: (1) Whether his name was on the Union's lists submitted to Respondent; (2) whether he had been laid off in previous (1960 or 1961) economic reductions; (3) his seniority or length of service with Respondent; (4) his rate of pay as com- pared with others retained in similar job categories;' and (5) inter- rogations or threats directed against him. We have also taken into consideration the number of union members laid off as contrasted with the number of nonunion employees laid off, all doing a particular job or employed within a particular job category. 7 The Respondent contended that ability was generally the basis for determining who was to be laid off. The General Counsel points out that since raises were largely based on merit, the amount of hourly wage was indicative of the individual's ability and the Respondent was inconsistent in laying off higher paid individuals before lesser paid and presumably lesser skilled employees While we do not find that wage rates are the sole determining factor in determining the degree of employee skills, we conclude that it is a factor to be considered. RESEARCH DESIGNING SERVICE, INC. 215 The Trial Examiner found that Clarence Cherry, William C. Harris, Robert Heatherly, Stephen Aszurek, Lyle E. Locke, Edward Richter, Roy Ligon, Jr., Walter Kowalski, Eugene Shockley, and Ramon Szawronski, all of whom were listed by the Union as organizers, were discriminatorily laid off in violation of the Act. With the exception of Heatherly and Richter, all of these individuals had been employed by the Respondent since 1956 or longer and none of them were laid off in the reductions in force in 1960 and 1961. Bench hands: Five individuals out of 16 employees employed as bench hands were allegedly laid off discriminatorily. The Trial Examiner concluded that Aszurek and Heatherly were in fact discrim- inatorily laid off. Aszurek's service with Respondent dated from December 1952. He was earning the same or more than two individ- uals who were not union adherents, both of whom had less seniority and were not laid off. Heatherly, who was hired on August 14, 1961, credibly testified that when he was laid off, Supervisor Staller told him that "he was satisfied with my work, but they were getting a little short on work and they had my name in the office that I was head of-trying to organize the union in there." Like the Trial Examiner, we conclude these two men were discriminatorily selected for layoff. Electricians: We also conclude that Roy Ligon and Eugene Shock- ley were discriminatorily laid off. As the only union adherents among 12 electrician employees, it is significant that they were the only 2 selected for layoff. Neither Ligon nor Shockley has the least seniority among the electricians nor were they the lowest paid. Welders: Of approximately 13 welder employees, the Trial Exami- ner concluded the Respondent had discriminatorily selected 2 em- ployees, Cherry and Harris, for layoff out of 5 allegedly laid off dis- criminatorily. Eight other individuals had less seniority than Cherry or Harris, and these two men were not the lowest paid in their category. We also note that seven or eight employees retained in this category were not union adherents. We agree that these men were discrimina- torily selected for layoff. Lathe operators: The Trial Examiner found a discriminatory layoff with respect to Lyle Locke, one of the oldest employees in Respond- ent's service among the 12 lathe operators. As to another alleged discriminatory layoff, Rekstis, the Trial Examiner dismissed. How- ever, we note that Rekstis' seniority dated from December 1955 and that when he was laid off,he was making $2.95 an hour. One employee, with less seniority, made only $2.90 an hour. Moreover, of the five employees in this category who were not union adherents, none was laid off. We conclude, therefore, that Rekstis' layoff, as well as that of Locke, was discriminatory. 216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Shaper operators: Richter was one of three employees employed as a "shaper" hand. He was the only union adherent in this category and he was the only one laid off. Although he had less seniority than the other two employees, he had received a 20-cent an hour raise a month before his layoff and received $3.10 an hour compared to $2.90 an hour for employee Wielgosz who was retained. Although Respond- ent's witnesses testified that Richter was laid off for lack of work, another employee, Locke, was transferred to Richter's machine within a few days after Richter's layoff. Richter credibly testified that at the time of his layoff he had work remaining to be done. In view of Supervisor Leonard's interrogation of Richter as to where he stood with respect to the Union and the factors previously enumerated, we agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that Richter was dis- criminatorily laid off. Radial drill operators: Kowalski was selected for layoff despite the fact that another employee (Laskaris) had less seniority and earned 15 cents an hour less. Supervisor Payne had previously singled him out and asked him why he had joined the Union. Such interroga- tion was indicative not only of management's concern in general with those individuals who had allied themselves with the Union, but with Kowalski in particular. Consequently, we also conclude that his selec- tion for layoff was discriminatorily motivated. Spar mill operators: At the time of his layoff, Szawronski was a spar mill helper. While the number of spar mill operators is not clearly defined in the record, we are persuaded, particularly in view of undisputed testimony as to the threats and discriminatory treat- ment of Szawronski by Supervisor Gastaldo, that Szawronski was discriminatorily laid off in violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. THE REMEDY The Trial Examiner concluded that an offer of employment made on May 14, 1962, to Stephen Aszurek and Ramon Szawronski, two employees found to be discriminatees herein, was not a valid offer and therefore did not terminate Respondent's backpay liabilities or end its obligation to offer reinstatement to such employees because recalled employees were admittedly treated as new employees insofar as seniority and vacation pay were concerned. However, both Aszurek and Szawronski refused the offer of reemployment for other reasons. In the case of Aszurek, he refused because he was not given any as- surances as to how long the offered work would last; and in the case of Szawronski, he refused because he was working longer hours and making more money at his current job. There is no indication that either individual was aware that he would be treated as a new em- ployee if he accepted the offer of reemployment. In these circum- stances, we conclude Respondent's offers to Aszurek and Szawronski RESEARCH DESIGNING SERVICE, INC. 217 operated to terminate Respondent's liability for backpay or rein- statement from that date; they are, however, entitled to backpay for the period until such offers were made. With respect to other individual discriminatees found herein who may be offered reinstatement pursuant to this Decision and Order, we shall require the Respondent to treat them as old employees, par- ticularly with reference to length of service and qualification for vacation benefits. We shall issue our usual Order that reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions be without prej- udice to their seniority or other rights and privileges.' ORDER The Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner is adopted with the following modifications : (1) Section 2(a) of the Recommended Order shall read : Offer Cherry, Harris, Heatherly, Locke, Richter, Ligon, Kowalski, Shockley, and Rekstis immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights or privileges , and make them and As- zurek and Szawronski whole in the manner set forth in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy," as modified by the section of this Decision and Order entitled "The Remedy." (2) Delete the name Rekstis from that paragraph of the Recom- mended Order pertaining to the dismissal of certain allegations of the complaint. (3) Delete the names of Stephen Aszurek and Ramon Szawronski from the list of names under paragraph 2 of Appendix B and insert therein the name of Walter Rekstis. (4) After the listing of names in Appendix B, insert the follow- ing additional paragraph : WE WILL make whole Stephen Aszurek and Roman Szawronski for any loss of pay suffered as the result of the discrimination against them. 8 For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in I8i8 Plumbing & Heating Co , 138 NLRB 716, Member Rodgers would not award interest on backpay. INTERMEDIATE REPORT STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding with all parties represented was heard before Trial Examiner John H. Eadie at a hearing in Detroit, Michigan, on July 5, 6, 9, and 10, 1962. The issue presented by the pleadings is whether Research Designing Service, Inc., herein referred to as the Respondent, violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act.' At the close of the General 1 Charges were filed on March 6 , April 12, and June 6, 1962. The complaint in Case No. 7-CA-3623 was issued on May 11, 1962 By order dated June 22, 1962, the Regional Director for the Seventh Region consolidated Cases Nos . 7-CA-3623 and 7-CA-3623(2) and an amendment to the complaint was made on the same date. 218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Counsel's case the Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint insofar as it relates to DeWayne Wesley, W. R. Houston, Walter Rekstis, Bob Garrison, Donald Ulivi, Erich Stiller, Ennis Smith, Peter Slepak, Eugene T. Shockley, Daniel Lange, John Ulivi, Nicholas Wilson, Fred Stanfest, and Douglas Shugar. The motion was granted over the General Counsel's objection with respect to Stanfest, Wilson, Shugar and John Ulivi. Ruling was reserved on the balance of the persons named. At the close of the whole case the General Counsel moved to withdraw from the complaint the names of Erich Stiller and Peter Slepak. The motion was granted without objec- tion. The Respondent reviewed its motion to dismiss. Ruling again was reserved. The Respondent's motion to dismiss is disposed of as hereinafter indicated. After the conclusion of the hearing the Respondent and the General Counsel filed briefs with the Trial Examiner.2 Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent is a Michigan corporation. It maintains its principal office and place of business in the city of Warren, Michigan, where it is engaged in the manu- facture, sale, and distribution of tools, dies, special machinery, fixtures, and related products. During the fiscal year October 1, 1960, through September 30, 1961, which is representative of the Respondent's operations during all times material herein, it purchased goods and materials valued in excess of $100,000 of which approximately $20,000 were transported and delivered to its Warren plant directly from points outside the State of Michigan. During the same period of time, the Respondent sold products and services valued in excess of $2,000,000, of which over $1,000,000 was for goods and services sold to customers outside the State of Michigan. For the same period, sales to Ford Motor Company were not less than $400,000, sales to General Motors Corporation were not less than $150,000, and sales to Chrysler Corporation were not less than $200,000. Said three customers of the Respondent each annually produces and ships goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly out of the State wherein said customer is located. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Local 155, International Union , United Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, (UAW) AFL-CIO, herein referred to as the Union, is a labor organization which admits to membership employees of the Respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background By letter dated February 5, 1962, the Union advised the Respondent that a majority of its production and maintenance employees had designated the Union as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that said employees had selected 32 employees, named in the letter, as an "Organizing Committee." In letters dated February 8 and 19, 1962, to the Respondent the Union named 26 addi- tional employees who were on the committee. During March 1962, the Respondent laid off approximately 39 employees. Of this number, 23 were employees who had been named in the Union's letters. During March 1962, and before the layoffs, the Respondent employed approximately 250 production and maintenance employees. Howard Wilkens and George Sirko are president and general manager, respectively, of the Respondent. It is undisputed that Edward Priebe, Joseph Staller, Jr., Harold Manderfield, Edward Ibetson, and Joseph Staller, Sr., are supervisory employees within the meaning of the Act. Usually the Respondent's plant operates on two shifts which change at 3:30 p.m.3 Priebe has supervision over the "day" shift Foreman Staller, Senior, Manderfield, and Ibetson 4 also work on this shift. Staller, Junior, has supervision over the "afternoon" shift. 'In its brief the Respondent submitted 14 "proposed general findings of fact." The Respondent's proposed findings of fact have been accepted only when consistent with the findings of fact hereinafter made Otherwise, they are rejected 3 Sirko testified that at times "when the workload goes up" some of the machines are operated on a third shift. 4 Concerning Ibetson, Sirko testified, "What we call a foreman . . . who is the program coordinator and program director as far as the aircraft work in our plant goes." RESEARCH DESIGNING SERVICE, INC. 219 B. The status of Roy Leonard, Sr., Hobert Payne, and Richard Gastaldo The complaint alleges that Leonard, Payne, and Gastaldo are supervisory employees within the meaning of the Act. The Respondent denies this, contending that these three employees are "working leaders" who "carry out the instructions of Respondent's supervisors and do not use independent judgment and discretion." The Respondent employs about 20 leaders, including Gastaldo, Leonard, and Payne. They do not have authority to hire, promote, discharge, or discipiline employees. They receive instructions concerning the work to be performed from Sirko, Mander- field, Ibetson, Staller, Junior, Staller, Senior, and Priebe. The leaders carry out these instructions by assigning jobs to employees and by transferring them from one machine to another. They are not consulted by the supervisor when employees are selected for layoff. Concerning Leonard, employee Clarence Cherry testified that when Priebe is not present, Leonard "usually takes his place," assigning operators to different mills or telling them "what he wants done first"; that "he is always running the crane or tell- ing somebody what to do"; that "he is more or less leader over all of the shop," including welding; and that he performs production work. Employee Stephen Aszurek testified that in his opinion Leonard was a leader, and that Leonard "put men on machines and assigned them work." Employee Francis Chateau testified that Leonard assigned him to different machines; that when he asked Leonard for a wage increase, he replied, "You are among the higher paid ones"; and that he did not get an increase until after he spoke to Woodrow Wilkens 5 Employee Ronald Painter, a "hi-lo" operator, testified that Leonard directed him where to place materials; and that on one occasion employee Robert Garrison "messed up a part, and Roy Leonard and Ed Priebe were over there, and they sent him home." 6 Concerning Leonard's duties, Priebe testified, "All of these men are under me, actually, but I have Roy as a working leader, and he is looking over twenty-four men . . He helps them with their setups, discusses the prints with them, shows them the operation of the job, how it should be cut, milled, set up, that is what I have Roy do. All the jobs are given to him on a list datewise, as far as priority is concerned, and he operates to that list that I assign to him." With respect to Payne, employee William King testified that "he lines the men up on their jobs"; that he "shows them what to do if they don't understand what they are supposed to do"; that if necessary he assigned employees to different machines; and that he did not grant employees time off from work. Employee Stephen Zilinick testified that Payne "is in charge of the lathe and mill department on afternoons"; that "if I run out of a job I come and see [Payne] and he will give me a job"; that "if you run into trouble on your machine you go to him and he will help straighten you"; that on one occasion Staller, Junior, told him and two other lathe operators that in the future if they had any trouble or needed help on their jobs, they should see Payne; and that Payne performed manual work. Employee Walter Kowalski testified that Payne "is a leader"; that Payne "gives men work. He gave me work. If you run out of a job or if you have time or if you have trouble setting up a machine he will come over and help you"; and that if he wanted time off from work, he asked Staller, Junior, and not Payne Sirko testified, in substance, that Gastaldo worked on the afternoon shift under Ibetson; 7 and that if any "problems" arose or any "disciplinary action" was needed, Gastaldo could notify either Sirko, Ibetson, or Woodrow Wilkens, since they "generally" were in the shop until 5:30 or 6 p.m. or later, or Staller, Junior, when they were not present Employee Ramon Szawronski testified that he worked under Gastaldo; and that when he wanted time off from work he asked Staller, Junior, not Gastaldo. Employee Larry Wilson testified that Gastaldo is a leader who "very seldom" performs any manual work; that he transfers employees from one machine to another; and that Gastaldo "gets the lineup for the men on days and gives it to us when we come to work . If we need help at the machine he shows us what to do." Employee Donald Stepke testified that Gastaldo "is in charge of the aircraft on afternoons"; that he did not operate machines; that Gastaldo "lines jobs up and tells what machines to work on . what parts to run . . . assigns . . . what jobs you are to work on for that day"; that Gastaldo "usually came around and asked when you wanted to go B Woodrow Wilkens is a brother of Howard Wilkens. He is at times referred to in the record as "Woody." 9 Priebe testified that Leonard called it to his attention that Garrison had "run scrap," and that he (Priebe ) personally sent Garrison home He also testified that Leonard did not have the authority to reprimand or discharge employees or to recommend such action 7 As noted above , Ibetson worked on the day shift 220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD on vacation"; and that on one occasion, about 2 weeks before the hearing herein, Gastaldo granted him time off from work .8 Priebe testified to the effect that he recommends pay raises for employees to Sirko and Woodrow Wilkens; that his recommendations are based on his own observation and on information supplied to him by his leaders; and that at times his leaders recommend to him raises for employees. Staller, Junior, testified that during March 1962, there were approximately 96 employees on the afternoon shift; and that Gastaldo leads about 8 employees and Payne "twenty-some" employees. Concerning requests of employees for time off from work, Staller, Junior, testified "they generally try to notify me that they are leaving. And, if not, in most cases they either try to get hold of [Payne] or [Gastaldo] or someone; actually any toolmaker or any person in the place could direct them to let me know when they are leaving." From the above, I find that the General Counsel has failed to prove that Leonard, Payne, and Gastaldo are supervisory employees within the meaning of the Act or agents of the Respondent, as alleged in the complaint. Accordingly, the evidence concerning the statements and conduct of these three employees, which the General Counsel contends are violative of the Act and which stand uncontradicted in the record,9 will not be set forth herein. C. Interference, restraint, and coercion 10 1. George Sirko On or about February 12, 1962, employee Clarence Cherry had a conversation with Sirko. Sirko asked him how he had made out at a meeting of the Union which had been held on the previous Sunday. Cherry replied, "Pretty good, I guess, George. We had quite a few people there." Sirko then asked Cherry if he knew when the employees were going to vote, stating, "I wish they would hurry up and get it over with one way or the other." I find that Sirko's interrogation was innocuous and not violative of the Act. In so finding, I note that Cherry's name is listed as one of the members of the organizing committee set forth in the Union's letter of February 5, 1962. Under the circumstances, I do not believe Sirko's interrogation was coercive. The Union's letter of February 8, 1962, to the Respondent contained the name of employee William King as a member of the organizing committee. About a week later Sirko went to King's place of work and asked him what he expected to gain from the Union. King answered that he wanted job security. Sirko pointed out that King had never been laid off and stated that he was not threatening him in anyway. King answered that he had had a talk with Staller, Junior, on the same subject and that he considered Staller's remarks as a threat." Sirko said that he would speak to Staller about it, as the foremen had been notified "not to threaten anybody or talk to any- body about the Union." He also said that it would not surprise him "at all if Howard Wilkens wouldn't lay all of the men off that had their name on the list." Since both King and Sirko testified that this conversation took place about a week after Febru- ary 8, it is clear that Sirko referred to the union letter and not to a "layoff list," and that his remark was a threat of reprisal. As such it is found to be violative of the Act. John Jablinsky was named as a member of the organizing committee in the Union's letter of February 8, 1962. Jablinsky was laid off on March 23 and recalled to work on May 14. At sometime during his layoff he went to the plant and asked Sirko for work. Sirko replied that he would be recalled when he was needed. Jablinsky brought up the subject of the Union. In substance, he told Sirko that he realized that he had made a mistake in letting another employee talk him into signing for the Union. At some point during the conversation Sirko said, "You sign up for the union." As a witness, Jablinsky had difficulty understanding questions and express- ing himself in English. His testimony is disjointed. Since it is not clear at what point during the conversation Sirko made the above remark, I find that it is not violative of the Act. 8 Stepke testified, "It was more or less an emergency. I had to leave. I had to go downtown and pick my sister-in-law up, and I said I had to leave, and he said, 'Okay, make your timecard out' " Stepke further testified that he did not "believe" that Gastaldo checked with anyone before giving him permission to leave. 9 Leonard, Payne, and ^Gastaldo did not appear as witnesses at the hearing 10 There is testimony in the case concerning several incidents involving Howard Wilkens. In his brief the General Counsel contends that one such incident was a violation of Sec- tion 8(a) (1) of the Act. I make no finding in this connection since there is no allegation as to Wilkens in paragraph 10 of the complaint. 11 The conversation between King and Sta]ler, Junior, will be related hereinafter RESEARCH DESIGNING SERVICE, INC. 221 2. Joseph Staller, Jr. During the week after February 8, Staller went to King's place of work and asked him why he wanted the Union. King answered that he wanted security. In sub- stance, Staller told King that he would not benefit with the Union in the plant since he was not a "journeyman," explaining that in case of a layoff journeymen would be retained on the job. I do not find Staller's statement to King to be violative of the Act. About the middle of February 1962 employees William Canada and Don Ulivi were having a conversation in the welding department.12 Staller approached them and said, "Hey, let's break up this union meeting." I do not find this remark of Staller's to be violative of the Act. Employee Robert Heatherly was named as a member of the organizing committee in the Union's letter of February 5, 1962. On or about February 19 Staller told Heatherly that he had heard that Heatherly had been trying to organize the plant and that he could "talk union all [he] wanted to on free time but not on work- time." 13 I find that Staller's statement to Heatherly does not constitute interference. 3. Harold Manderfield Employee Edward Richter's name was listed in the Union's letter of February 5, 1962, as a member of the organizing committee. On or about February 19, Mander- field went to Richter's place of work and talked to him. Concerning the conversa- tion, Richter testified without contradiction as follows: 14 He asked me what I thought of the union business, and I told him very similar to what I told Roy Leonard; that I thought a union would be good for the shop as long as we would have sensible men representing us that weren't hot-headed and wouldn't injure the company, because we all had to make a living. Then he said he thought if the union got in he was told .. . Howard Wilkens-that if the union did get in he would join the association and all of the fellows that were not journeymen would have to be laid off and it would make his job easier because he wouldn't have to do any setup work for anybody, and I explained to him, too, that they had apprentice scheduling, which he said it was fifteen to one, and I corrected him, and I told him it was eight to one, and the younger fellows that didn't have the experience would probably adopt the apprentice program or the ones that were older would go into contractual journeymen's agreement. I do not believe or find that the above statements of Manderfield are violative of the Act. Employee Stephen Zilinick also was named in the Union's letter of February 5. On or about February 9 he had several conversations with Manderfield. Manderfield first went to Zilinick's place of work and later called him into his office. Concerning his conversations with Manderfield, Zilinick testified without contradiction as follows: . he asked me if I had heard anything about the union on afternoons, and he asked me what I thought about it, and I didn't make no comment to these two statements. Then he said it might be good and it might not be so good. * * * * * * * He said, "I see your name is on the organizers list or union list," and he asked me why I signed it. Was it for money or what? I told him no. I said it was for security. And he went on and started saying, "I think some of you boys will be a little disappointed or sorry later on." * * * * * * * 12 Canada and Ulivi were named as members of the organizing committee in the Union's letter of February 8, 1962. 12 Concerning the reason for his statement to Heatherly, Staller testified, "Bob was con- stantly conversing with people, where I knew he shouldn't be. He didn't have that type of work that required so many people to be involved, and he was constantly at various machines talking to people." Also on or about February 19, Staller made substantially the same statement to employee Walter Kowalski. Kowalski testified that Staller said "to quit talking union in the shop." Staller testified that he mentioned "Company time." I credit Staller's version of the conversation. 14 Manderfield did not appear as a witness at the hearing. Employee Lyle Locke testi- fied that he had two conversations with Manderfield. This testimony is not set forth since it is substantially the same as the above testimony of Richter. 222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Well, he said, "When we come to lay off there some of the boys will be in differ- ent classifications," and mentioned that say I have been working there eleven years and another fellow has been working five years, and he would be put in a different classification, and he asked me, "Who do you think would get laid off?," and I told him, "Well , the gentleman with less seniority," and there was no comment on that I find that Manderfield 's interrogation concerning union activity on the afternoon shift constitutes interference. In my opinion, Manderfield's remark about the em- ployees being "disappointed or sorry later on" was not coercive , since it is clear that it related to job classifications in case of a layoff. 4. Edward Priebe The name of Stephen Aszurek was listed in the Union's letter of February 5, 1962, as a member of the organizing committee. On or about February 6 Aszurek had a conversation with Priebe. Concerning this conversation, Aszurek testified, "Ed Priebe come up to me later on, and he said, `You surprise me, Steve.' He said, `Why did you sign that letter?' I said, `Well, I have got eleven years in here, and I want to protect it. What I see going on up here, I want to protect my seniority.' . . . He said, `There ain't no security . . . . The boss can close the gates up tomorrow, and where is your security.' " Priebe testified that he had four or five conversations about the Union with Aszurek; that he had hear a rumor from another employee that Aszurek's name was on "the union list"; that he asked Aszurek if his name was on the list; 15 that Aszurek "denied it violently," saying if his name was on the list, it was "forged" and "a down- right lie"; that a few days later Aszurek admitted that he was on the list; and that during one of the conversations he told Aszurek that he was foolish to think about job security and seniority as "there is no such thing." I credit Aszurek's version of the conversation and find that Priebe's remarks were violative of the Act. D. The layoffs The amended complaint alleges that the Respondent laid off and/or terminated the employment of the following employees on or about the dates appearing opposite their names: Francis A. Chateau ------------------------------ 3/2/62 ---------- Edward Richter ---------------------------------- 3/3/62 ---------- Robert Heatherly -------------------------------- 3/2/62 ---------- William Canada --------------------------------- 3/2/62 ---------- W. R. Houston ---------------------------------- 3/23/62 ---------- Lyle E. Locke ----------------------------------- 3/23/62 ---------- DeWayne E. Wesley ------------------------------ 3/2/62 ---------- Walter Kowalski --------------------------------- 3/23/62 ---------- Walter Rekstis --------------------------------- -- 3/23/62 ---------- Clarence Cherry 16 _______________________________ 3/23/62 6/1/62 Roy Ligon, Jr. ----------------------------------- 3/23/62 ---------- Charles W. Avendt ------------------------------- 3/23/62 ---------- Bob Garrison ____________________________________ 3/23/62 ---------- Donald C. Ulivi --------------------------------- 3/23/62 ---------- Stephen Aszurek --------------------------------- 3/23/62 ---------- Francesco Migliorati ------------------------------ 3/23/62 ---------- John Jablinsky ----------------------------------- 3/23/62 ---------- Ramon Szawronski ------------------------------- 3/23/62 ---------- Roger W. Ulrich --------------------------------- 3/23/62 ---------- Ennis F. Smith ----------------------------------- 3/23/62 ---------- Eugene T. Shockley ------------------------------ 3/23/62 ---------- Daniel Lange ------------------------------------ 3/23/62 ---------- William C. Harris -------------------- ------------ 3/23/62 6/1/62 Of the above employees, only Heatherly, Migliorati, Szawronski, Ligon, Canada, Ulrich, Harris, Kowalski, Chateau, Richter, Locke, Cherry, Avendt, Jablinsky, and Aszurek appeared at witnesses and gave testimony concerning their layoffs. There is no issue in the case concerning the economic necessity for the layoff. The General Counsel contends that Respondent selected the above employees for 15 Priebe testified that he asked "other employees" the same question 16 It is undisputed that Cherry and Harris were recalled to work on May 14, 1902 RESEARCH DESIGNING SERVICE, INC. 223 layoff because they were named as members of the organizing committee in the Union's letters to the Respondent. Howard Wilkens, Priebe, and Sirko testified at length concerning the Respondent's policy in the selection of employees for layoff. In brief, they testified that the only considerations that are taken into account are ability, job versatility, hardship cases, and seniority. As to seniority, Sirko testified, "In most instances it is where all other things are equal between two men's capability, ability, attitude and so forth, where all of these things are equal, then the length of service does have a bearing on it." Clarence Cherry was hired by the Respondent on October 11, 1955. For about 6 months prior to his layoff on March 23, 1962, he worked as a welder. Prior to that time he had worked as a bench hand and a drill press operator and had performed maintenance work. About August 1960, he was reprimanded by Priebe who told him that he should devote more time to his job. At the time of his layoff he was paid $2.75 per hour. He was recalled to work on May 14, 1962, and laid off again on June 1, 1962. William Harris was hired by the Respondent on May 17, 1956. For about a year prior to his layoff on March 23, 1962, he performed work in the welding department, burning and welding. Prior to that time it appears that he performed odd jobs such as painting. At the time of his layoff he was paid $2.30 per hour. He was recalled to work on May 14, 1962, and was laid off again on June 1, 1962. Roger Ulrich was hired by the Respondent on January 18, 1960, he worked as a welder for about 2 years before his layoff on March 23, 1962. Prior to that time he had worked on a planer, radial drill, and odd jobs. At the time of his layoff he was paid at the rate of $2.10 per hour. He was recalled to work on April 11, 1962. He testified that at the time of his layoff the welders were working 48 hours per week and that when he was recalled to work, he worked 58 hours per week for about 11/2 months. William Canada was hired by the Respondent on June 20, 1961, and worked as a welder. He was laid off on November 3, 1961, and was rehired on January 8, 1962. He continued to work as a welder and was paid at the rate of $1.95 per hour when he was laid off on March 2, 1962. Donald Ulivi was hired on December 22, 1959, and worked as a welder. At the time of his layoff on March 23, 1962, he was paid at the rate of $2.20 per hour. The evidence reveals that before the layoffs in March 1962, the following em- ployees worked as welders with the rates of pay and seniority noted opposite their names. Rate Seniority Charles D.Smith ------------------------------------- $3.20 12/16/57 James Beaudoin______________________________________ 3.05 12/10/50 John Smart__________________________________________ 2.40 12/11/61 Herb Johnson________________________________________ 2 50 10/3/55 Luther Van Gordon---------------------------------- 2.50 7/10/61 Earl Hickey ----------------------------------------- 3.20 4/7/53 Ledford Tebolt_______________________________________ 2.65 1/2/60 Alfred Schroder______________________________________ 2.15 6/6/61 Employee Alfred Janco testified that he was hired in March 1956 and worked as a bench hand; that about the end of March or the first part of April 1962 he and employee Thomas Whalen were transferred into the welding department; that he was assigned the job of burning steel; that Whalen welded; and that they remained in the welding department 4 or 5 weeks. The evidence reveals that Janco was paid at the rate of $2.55 an hour; that Whalen was hired by the Respondent on April 9, 1956, and was paid at the rate of $2.45 per hour; that Janco, Whalen, Johnson, and Tebolt (Tebo) were named in the Union's letters to the Company as members of the organizing committee; that Smith's employment was terminated at sometime after March 23, 1962; and that Smart's employment was terminated at sometime before April 16, 1962, and he was rehired on April 16, 1952. Priebe testified that he selected Cherry for layoff both on March 23 and June 1, 1962; that Cherry was laid off on both occasions because of a lack of work; that he had been recalled because of an accumulation of welding work; and that on more than one occasion he reprimanded Cherry for being idle. Sirko testified in substance, that Janco and Whalen were experienced workers on "aircraft work"; that when there was "a lull in our aircraft work," they were transferred to the welding depart- ment "rather than lay them off . And then have to call them back in a short while, and then lay the people off again in the welding department"; that Cherry was selected for layoff by Priebe because "on a number of occasions we have seen Mr. Cherry away from his work station"; that Harris and Canada were selected for 224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD layoff because they had "the least amount of experience and the least amount of ability"; and that Tebolt, Hickey, and Schroder were retained instead of Ulrich and Ulivi because they had more experience. Charles Avendt was hired on February 6, 1957. He was paid at the rate of $2.65 per hour at the time of his layoff on March 23, 1962. His job was to lubricate all machines in the plant, including machines owned by the Air Force. When the last of the Air Force machines were removed from the plant at sometime during Feb- ruary 1962, Avendt was transferred to "bench" work, burring aluminum. On or about March 16 he was transferred to the toolroom, where he assembled bearings and rollers. He was laid off by Priebe who told him that "things were slow in the shop." Sirko testified to the effect that when the Air Force machines were removed from the plant, the machine operators were required to lubricate their own machines "in most instances"; and that Avendt was laid off because "we had run out of this alumi- num work, and some of the steel mill work at the same time." John Jablinsky was hired on April 16, 1956. At the time of his layoff on March 23, 1962, he was paid at the rate of $2.35 per hour. He worked as a bench hand, cleaning, painting, and assembling. He also operated a drill press machine. He was laid off by Staller who told him, "You got laid off, John. You be on the list.,, 17 Jablinsky was recalled to work on May 14. Concerning the reason for the selection of Jablinsky for layoff, Sirko testified as follows: Well, we happened to have a decrease in the general work. * * * * * * * He was a general helper in the shop, bench helper and so forth, and he was probably capable because he had worked in shops and so forth at Chrysler before he came to work for us, and he was more capable than just pulling anybody in off the street. He had better capabilities than that, but his experi- ence and so forth and his places where we tried him out in our plant in the die shop . . . . We couldn't give him a job to lead, or as a bench hand and leave him alone, because he wasn't capable of reading blueprints and so forth to any great extent. we tried him out in the die department, working for Mr. Staller, and we also tried him out on other bench help, which he didn't prove successful at. He was a good hard worker all of the time. Stephen Aszurek was hired on December 28, 1952. He was a bench worker, building grill fixtures. He was paid $3.25 per hour when he was laid off by Priebe on March 23, 1962. Concerning the conversation with Priebe at the time of his layoff, Aszurek testified without contradiction to the following: I was with John Ulivi at that time and he said, "I'll get you guys both at the same time. I'm sorry to tell you fellows, but you are both being laid off," and I said, "Why?," and he said, "Well, not enough work for the bench hands around here," and so I said, "Ed, can I ask you a question?," and he said, "Go ahead," and I says, "How come," I says, "Wesley"-or Westover, we call him-"and Chuck Gilmore," I said, "I do the same work and everything, and I am getting laid off, and not them? I have been there longer than them." And he said, "I can't say nothing else." He just said, "You and Ulivi are being laid off." Aszurek received notice to report for work effective May 14, 1962. He went to the plant and spoke to Sirko, but refused the job when he learned that he might be laid off again. As to the reason for Aszurek's layoff, Sirko testified: Well, the type of work that he was doing was bench work. He was doing layout work and so forth on a lot of these drill fixtures, these drill plates-the basic drill fixture itself was under one of the bench leaders at the time-but this consisted of a whole bench of drill plates that were interchangeable on this main base drill fixture, and Steve Aszurek-this was one of the jobs that he had at the time just before layoff, and, as I stated before, the engineering on this thing was held up, and there were engineering changes coming, and so all of these drill fixtures were held up, and there was just a lack of this type of layout work and so forth, and bench work, that he was capable of doing. There just wasn't any of that particular type of work at that time. 17 Jablinsky testified credibly to the above. Staller testified that he said "layoff list." RESEARCH DESIGNING SERVICE, INC. 225 Concerning the reason why Aszurek was selected for layoff rather than other bench hands, Sirko testified that Lester Northey was "a much more capable toolmaker ... he has done real well on steel machines-or on die assemblies-his scope is much greater"; that Charles Gilmore was "one of our bench leaders" with greater experience and versatility ; that Joseph Feirer "is a good machine builder . He has had experience on the bench and everything "; that Walter Serowoky and Wiley Smith were "working primarily on one of the wire machines we have in our plant . . What we call the blister machines"; that Joe Zingraf "was one of our die leaders and of course we had quite a bit of die work at the time"; and that Leonard Kopec was a machinery builder and "one of our better bench leaders." Robert Heatherly was hired on August 14, 1961. He worked as a bench hand, "building aircraft fixtures and some Ford fixtures." At the time of his layoff on March 2, 1962, he was paid $2.75 per hour. Concerning his conversation with Staller at the time of his layoff, Heatherly testified credibly, "He told me that he was satisfied with my work, but they were a little short on work and they had my name in the office that I was head of-trying to organize the union in there." i8 DeWayne Wesley, a bench hand, also was laid off on March 2 , 1962. He was hired on August 16, 1961 . At the time of his layoff he was paid at the rate of $3.25 per hour. Concerning the reason for Heatherly's layoff, Sirko testified: This is primarily due to, like I say, the aircraft program, that we had had all of these fixtures and so forth . They were either being completed or had been completed, or, in essence, about the only thing that hadn't been completed at the time were these drill fixtures which were held up because of the engineering information, and these are the type of fixtures Mr. Heatherly was working on, and he was one of the men that just happened to be running out of work at the time. We had another Ford job that he was following the day man or the day leader on, and he got a lineup from the day leader to finish up the details and so forth , and maybe do some of the assembly work, and this work- this fixture and everything else-was also completed at the time, so it was just a lack of work in that particular assembly area with the number of people that we have in it. As to the reason why Heatherly was selected for layoff rather than other bench- workers, Sirko testified that Wiley Smith "not only is a fixture builder, but he is also what I would classify as . . . a good machine builder also"; and that Joseph Feirer "is a real good leader, . but the capabilities of [Heatherly and Feirer], there is just no comparison one with the other." The evidence discloses that before the layoffs in March 1962 the following employees worked as bench hands with the rates of pay and seniority noted opposite their names: Rate Seniority Wiley Smith------------------------------------------ $3.25 4/10/56 Joe Feirer-------------------------------------------- 3.75 4/5/54 Lester Northey---------------------------------------- 3.50 9/9/57 Charles Gilmore -------------------------------------- 3.70 10/9/51 John Ulivi-------------------------------------------- 3.65 3/21/55 Joe Zingraf------------------------------------------- 3.90 8/20/54 Leonard Kopec--------------------------------------- 3.55 7/16/51 Walter Serowoky-------------------------------------- 3.25 8/30/54 Tom Whalen----------------------------------------- 2.45 4/9/56 Alfred Janco----------------------------------------- 2.55 3/27/56 Roman Konieczny------------------------------------- 2.60 3/15/55 Doug Shugar----------------------------------------- 1.80 2/11/62 The record also shows that of the above, Smith , Whalen, and Janco were members of the organizing committee ; that John Ulivi and Shugar were laid off on March 23, 1962; and that Ulivi was rehired on May 14, 1962. Francesco Migliorati first was hired by the Respondent in August 1954. He was laid off in November 1954 and was recalled to work on February 15 , 1955. For about 3 years prior to his layoff on March 23, 1962, he was a lathe operator, and was paid $2.70 per hour. When he was notified of his layoff by Manderfield, Mig- liorati asked him if the layoff was "on account of this union activity." Manderfield replied that it was not; that if he had the opportunity , he would call Migliorati back is Staller testified that he told Heatherly that he was "on the layoff list," and that he did not recall any other part of the conversation. 226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to work; and that he did not care if employee Lyle Locke "got called back or not." Concerning the reason for Migliorati's layoff, Sirko testified he was not punc- tual in getting to work and further testified: Like I say, we had finished this aluminum work, and there wasn't anything in the plant of any of the jobs even that we had in the plant that required an awful lot of turning work, which we classify as lathe work, and so forth, for that particular area, work area. As to the reason why Migliorati was selected for layoff rather than other lathe oper- ators, Sirko testified to the effect that employees Jerome Kamalski, Frank Nagy, Sidney Leach, Bernard Loyd, and Raymond Zapezynski were "better" lathe oper- ators and more versatile than Migliorati. Lyle Locke was hired on May 7, 1951. He was a machinist and was paid at the rate of $3.05 per hour. He was a lathe operator for about 6 months prior to about March 3, 1962, at which time he was transferred by Manderfield to the screw machine. He worked on this machine for 3 or 4 days and was then transferred to the shaper, which had been operated by employee Edward Richter until his layoff on March 3, 1962. Locke operated the shaper until about March 20, at which time he was transferred back to the screw machine. He was operating this machine at the time of his layoff on March 23, 1962. Some few days before his layoff on March 23, Locke was talking to employee Don Paine who had come to Locke's place of work to borrow an indicator. Howard Wilkens approached them and said, "Give me a card. I'll sign." Manderfield notified Locke of his layoff, telling him that "work was running out." Manderfield denied that the layoff was because of union activity when Locke asked him. Locke was rehired on May 15, and was laid off again on June 8, 1962. Sirko testified, in substance, that he had reprimanded Locke on at least two occa- sions "within the last year" at the request of Manderfield for not "staying by his machine full time" and for getting to work late.19 Concerning the reason for select- ing Locke for layoff, Sirko testified that Loyd, Zapezynski, and Leach were either more capable or more versatile than Locke. Walter Rekstis was hired on December 9, 1955. He was a lathe and a hand screw machine operator. At the time of his layoff on March 23, 1962, he was paid $2.95 per hour. The record discloses that the following employees were lathe operators, with the rates of pay and seniority noted after their names: Rate Seniority Bill Blight __________________________________________ $2.55 5/31/55 Raymond Zapezynski_________________________________ 2.85 8/1/55 Jerome Kamalski ------------------------------------ 3.05 ]2/15/52 Frank Nagy ---------------------------------------- 3.10 7/20/48 Sidney Leach ---------------------------------------- 2.85 4/8/52 Bernard Loyd________________________________________ 2.90 10/1/56 Marcel Renou --------------------------------------- 3.00 3/31/61 Stephen Zilinick______________________________________ 2.80 10/9/51 Donald Paine ________________________________________ 3.05 11/17/51 Raymond Cuellar ------------------------------------ 3.10 10/ 19/53 Blight, Zapezynski, Kamalski, and Zilinick were members of the Union's organizing committee. Edward Richter was hired on August 20, 1961. He worked as a shaper operator. At the time of his layoff on March 3, 1962, he was paid $3.10 per hour. About a month before his layoff he received a wage increase of 20 cents per hour. Concern- ing his conversation with Manderfield at the time of his layoff, Richter testified credibly as follows: He said, "Well, I guess I will have to lay you off. Work is getting slow." And I said, "Who are you trying to kid?" I said, "I've been working all day and all week trying to satisfy the die makers. Which one's job is the hottest?" And he said, "Well, it is starting to get slow," and I said, "You are sure you are satisfied with my work?" and he said, "Yes, very satisfied, very satisfactory," and I said, "I can't see where you are laying me off for lack of work, because I know there is all kinds of die work around," .. . As related above, Lyle Locke was transferred to Richter's shaper machine some few days after the latter's discharge. 18 Locke admitted that Sirko reprimanded him "probably a couple of years ago" and "probably" on other occasions RESEARCH DESIGNING SERVICE, INC. 227 The record discloses that the following employees operated shapers, with the rates of pay and seniority noted opposite their names: Rate Seniority Steve Wielgosz---------------------------------------- $2.90 3/22/55 Donald Locke ---------------------------------------- 3.55 1/4/51 Priebe testified that Richter was a "top shaperhand," and that he was laid off because there was a lack of shaper work. Concerning the reason for Richter's selection for layoff, Sirko testified: Well, at the time . we didn't have the lathe and shaper work that he was working on. This happened to go down pretty well, and, like I say, the shaper work and everything else in the process of dies-there was only enough work probably left for one man, as far as the shaper work on die work went, and we had a separate shaper actually pulled up in front in the die area where the die bench men worked, and Steve Wielgosz happened to be working on that, and he has been doing this type of work for a number of years, and there was only enough work for just the one man, as far as the die work went, and the tool shaper work was going down at the particular time, and their. lust wasn't enough work in the shaper area to keep Mr. Richter. Roy Leon Ligon, Jr., was hired on March 26, 1956. He worked as an electrician, "building handles, doing the wiring, mounting relays and transformers and such, to the electrical panels" and maintaining "machines which were electronic controlled." When Ligon was laid off on March 23, 1962, he received $2.85 per hour. Concern- ing the available work at the time of his layoff, Ligon testified without contradiction, "The job I had been working on for the last two or three weeks wasn't completed. It was only about a fourth of the way done. Maybe a third of the way done. There was quite a bit of work left on those fourteen machines." As to the reason for Ligon's layoff, Sirko testified to the effect that "the biggest per- centage" of Ligon's work was electronic maintenance work; that there was not "too much of this type of work left any more" since the electronic machines "were part of the government machines that were shipped out"; and that although "electronic- wise Roy Ligon was probably the best man we had in there," other employees were more capable as industrial electricians. He further testified that employees Robert Rueter, Melvin Sherman, Gilbert Francisco, Joseph De Maris, Giuseppe De Maria, and Albert Andris were retained in preference to Ligon because they were either more capable as industrial electricians or more versatile. Eugene Shockley was hired on July 23, 1956, and worked as an electrician. He was paid at the rate of $2.50 per hour when he was laid off on March 23, 1962. The evidence discloses that the following employees worked as electricians with the rates of pay and seniority noted opposite their names: Rate Seniority Melvin Sherman ------------------------------------- $3.00 2/4/54 Robert Rueter--------------------------------------- --- ------- Gilbert Francisco------------------------------------- 2.85 12/5/51 Joseph De Maris------------------------------------- 2.85 6/20/55 Albert Andris --------------------------------------- 2.85 10/31/60 Eugene Jerome -------------------------------------- 2.35 11/21/55 Giuseppe De Maria----------------------------------- 2.35 4/30/56 Walter Kowalski was hired on August 1, 1955. He operated a radial drill for about a year before March 1962. Prior to that time he operated the spar mills At the time of his layoff on March 23, 1962, he was paid $2.55 per hour. About the middle of February 1961, Staller told Kowalski to "quit talking union in the shop." About the same time, Sirko saw employees Heatherly and Wiley Smith talking with Kowalski at his machine. Sirko told them to "break up the conversation and get back to work." As to his conversation with Staller when notified of his layoff, on March 23, Kowalski testified without contradiction: He walked up to me and said, "I want to check your tool box," and I said, "What for?," and he said, "You are laid off," and I said, "You are kidding. Joe," and he said, "Well, here is your check." I said, "Well, now that I am laid off, Joe, what is the reason I am laid off?," and he says, "Lack of work," and I said, "Now, Joe, you know better than that," and he said, "Well, that's what they told me to tell you," but he didn't say who. Kowalski was recalled to work on May 15, 1962. 7(18-006-64-vol. 141-16 228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Concerning the reason for Kowalski's layoff, Sirko testified as follows: A definite lack of work was the primary reason, of course. Walter Kowalski was one of the men that I would still consider him to be more of a trainee on a radial drill press, rather than what you would classify as a journeyman, because the amount of time he had spent on the radial drill press was about a year, and, in comparison with the other men on the afternoon shift running a radial drill press and that, he hadn't had as much experience as some of them. He had never done any of the radial drill press on the die work, and this was about the only type of radial drill press work we had then. Sirko also testified that Kowalski was selected for layoff rather than employees Fritz Gollannek, Edward Schlaps, Christos Laskaris, and William King because they were more, capable than Kowalski. The evidence discloses that the following employees were radial drill operators with the rates of pay and seniority noted opposite their names: Rate Seniority William King------------------------------------------$2.55 7/25/55 Ernst Sakowski---------------------------------------- 2.75 4/3/56 Edward Schlaps---------------------------------------- 3.05 1/6/54 Christos Laskaris--------------------------------------- 2.40 5/21/56 Fritz Gollannek---------------------------------------- 2.85 5/29/52 The record shows that King was a member of the Union's organizing committee, and that Sakowski also was laid off on March 23, 1962. Ramon Szawronski 20 was hired on April 16, 1956. He worked as a spar mill operator's helper, and was paid $2.35 per hour. His name was listed as a member of the organizing committee in the Union's letter of February 8, 1962. About 2 weeks later he had an argument with Gastaldo about the Union. As a result, Gastaldo assigned him to sweeping up the floor. When Szawronski complained to Sirko, Sirko told him that he would speak to Gastaldo. Thereafter, Sirko had no more trouble with Gastaldo. When he was laid off on March 23, 1962, Staller told him, "Roman, you laid off. Take your tool box, and that's all. You make sign for union." 21 Szawronski was called back to work on May 14, 1962, but refused the job. Concerning the reason for Szawronski's layoff, Sirko testified: We have, like I say, a reduction in work. Szawronski I would say is in the same category as John Jablinsky in capabilities and so forth. In fact, they both started about the same time, and his name was submitted on the layoff list to us in the front office as being not having any work for him at the time, so this is the reason he was put on. We tried Szawronski on other places, the same as we did Jablinsky. The comprehension of the man in taking instructions and so forth, he is limited, and in trying to convey his own thoughts back to somebody he might be working for he was limited unless there was someone that could show him, and he didn't have to go into great detail to explain to him these other types of jobs he was capable of doing, and he did a fairly good job of whatever he was generally assigned to, but he just didn't show any tendency to have-working up to be a good tool maker, in other words, even if he stayed at it for fifteen years. Sirko testified to the effect that Donald Stepke, Larry Wilson, and Damian Regep were spar mill operators ; that Szawronski was only a helper and not capable of run- mg a spar mill; and that for that reason Szawronski was selected for layoff rather than Stepke, Wilson, or Regep.22 Francis Chateau was hired on July 24, 1961. He ran a boring mill, "a Hydrotel and a Vertical and Horizontal milling machine." He received $3.25 per hour, having received a 25-cent per hour wage increase in January 1962. He was laid off on March 2, 1962, by Priebe, who told him that work was slow and that he was "low man." Concerning the reason for Chateau's layoff, Sirko testified as follows: On March 2nd, at this particular time we had just discontinued our third shift, which our third shift at that particular time consisted mainly of the people running the boring mills and the Kellers, and we were operating those twenty- four hours around the clock, and all of the people we had coming back to mid- nights, the midnight shift, back to days, in the afternoons, we had to make 20 As a witness it was apparent that Szawronski had difficulty speaking and under- standing English. 21 Szawronski testified without contradiction to the above. 22 Stepke and Wilson were members of the Union's organizing committee. RESEARCH DESIGNING SERVICE, INC. 229 room for them because they were all good employees, and these are the type of employees that you would put on the midnight shift, where you don't have to have as much supervision . In other words , the foreman from the days isn't there, the die foreman isn't there to be with them the whole time , so they more or less have to be able to do the job themselves , and not have to ask too many questions , so these are the type of operators we have working midnights that we brought back on the day shift and afternoon shift, and they just replaced Mr. Chateau on the machine, the boring mill that he was working on, that he was working on at the time. Lack of work , on most of the big machin- ing work on these dies was coming to a completion pretty much. William R. Houston was hired on June 13, 1961, and received $2.60 per hour; Robert Garrison was hired on July 26, 1961 , and received $ 1.90 per hour ; Daniel Lange was hired on August 14, 1961 , and received $ 1.80 per hour ; and Ennis Smith was hired on September 12, 1961 , and received $2.65 per hour. Sirko testified that Garrison "probably" ran a mill, that Smith ran a mill, and that Lange "at the time of the layoff was working on deburring." The evidence shows that the Respondent hired the following new employees, with the dates of hire and the rates of pay shown opposite their names: Date started Rate John Denstaedt---------------------------------------- 5/7/62 $1.90 Peter Holtz-------------------------------------------- 5/7/62 2.00 Frank Klupp------------------------------------------5/25/62 2.55 Chester Manczyk --------------------------------------- 5/8/62 1.80 Arthur Wilamowski------------------------------------- 5/9/62 1.70 Victor Zakorski---------------------------------------- 5/9/62 1.70 Ronny Franks------------------------------------------5/14/62 1.70 Robert Lee--------------------------------------------5/14/62 1.70 George Ratkov ----------------------------------------5/21/62 1.70 Dale Smith-------------------------------------------- 5/7/62 1.70 Sirko testified, in substance, that the above employees, with the exception of Klupp, were hired for "cleanup work . . . on some big castings we had received for repair from a steel mill"; that the work involved painting, cleaning, "some deburring," and possibly "some work on some of the smaller drill presses "; and that the work did not require "anybody with any specific skill." As to the reason why he did not recall laid-off employees for this work, Sirko testified to the following: Well, I know some of them probably wouldn't want to come back and do some of this type of work, for one thing. Another part of it, of course , is a matter of economics . Some of the people- most of the people I had laid off, the biggest part of them were getting a much higher rate than what I had to pay for these people, and what you pay for this type of work would actually call for. In fact, on occasion I have moved people to a lesser job just to keep them, just to keep them busy, and they have complained to me, "I don't want to do that kind of work. That's below me." And yet in these particular transfers I would not ask them to take a pay cut. I have moved people, like I say, to lesser jobs on a number of occasions , and I have not asked them to take any pay cut, and yet they still might complain . In the past I have found that some of them have complained . For this type of work we have had in here at the time I just hired a few new young people. The Respondent submitted in evidence an exhibit showing the layoffs during 1960 and 1961 .23 This exhibit indicates that the Respondent did not have any set policy during those years in the selection of employees for layoff insofar as seniority and rate of pay were concerned. Conclusions The statements and conduct, particularly of Sirko , Priebe, and Staller, and to some extent of Manderfield and Howard Wilkens, related and found above, reveal that the Respondent had a union animus and selected at least some of the employees for layoff because they were , or were thought to be, leading adherents of the Union. Accordingly, I am convinced and find that the layoffs of Clarence Cherry, William C. Harris, Robert Heatherly, Stephen Aszurek, Lyle E. Locke, Edward Richter, Roy 23 A copy of the exhibit is attached marked "Appendix A." 230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Ligon, Jr., Walter Kowalski, Eugene Shockley, and Ramon Szawronski were violative of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. In so finding, I have considered the statements made by the above supervisory employees to the individuals concerned, and the seniority dates and rates of pay of the employees ; and have not credited the reasons advanced by Sirko for their selection for layoff. As to the balance of the employees named in the complaint, I believe that the evidence preponderates in the Respondent 's favor, and shall recommend dismissal of the complaint as to them. Certain of the above employees, whom I have found were laid off discriminatorily, were rehired or were offered work but refused. These recalls did not amount to re- instatement, since upon recall the employee did not receive all of the benefits which he had prior to layoff. The evidence reveals that a recalled employee was treated as a new employee , at least insofar as seniority and vacation pay were concerned. For this reason I shall recommend the usual reinstatement order for all of the above employees. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con- nection 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 com- merce and the free flow thereof. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It has been found that the Respondent discriminated against Cherry, Harris, Heatherly, Aszurek, Locke, Richter, Ligon, Kowalski, Shockley, and Szawronski by laying them off. Accordingly, it will be recommended that the Respondent offer them immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights or privileges , and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he would have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination to the date of reinstatement , less his net earnings during such period in accordance with the formula prescribed in F. W. Wool- worth Company, 90 NLRB 289, together with interest on such sums, such interest to be computed in accordance with the formula prescribed by the Board in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact , and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By interfering with , restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act , the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 4. By discriminating with respect to the hire and tenure of employment of Cherry, Harris, Heatherly, Aszurek, Locke, Richter, Ligon, Kowalski, Shockley, and Szaw- ronski, thereby discouraging membership in the Union , the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act 5. By laying off Francis A. Chateau, William Canada, W. R. Houston, DeWayne E Wesley, Walter Rekstis, Charles W. Avendt, Bob Garrison, Donald C. Ulivi, Francisco Miglioiati, John Jablinsky, Roger W Ulrich, Ennis F. Smith, and Daniel Lange, the Respondent did not engage in any unfair labor practices. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Trial Examiner recommends that the Respondent , Research Designing Service, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from. (a) Discriminating against employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employ- ment or any term or condition of employment because of their membership in or activity on behalf of a labor organization. RESEARCH DESIGNING SERVICE, INC. 231 (b) Interrogating employees concerning their union membership and activities and threatening them with reprisal because of such activity. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with , restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization , to form, join, or assist the Union or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through repre- sentatives of their own choosing , and to engage in concerted activities for the pur- poses of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of em- ployment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended 2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Cherry, Harris, Heatherly, Aszurek, Locke, Richter, Ligon, Kowalski, Szawronski , and Shockley immediate and full reinstatement to their former or sub- stantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights or privileges , and make them whole in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying , all payroll records, social security payment records, time- cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary for the deter- mination of the amounts of backpay due under this Recommended Order. (c) Post at its plant in Warren , Michigan , copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B " 24 Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent or his authorized representative , be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by him for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region , in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what steps he has taken to comply herewith.25 It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it relates to Chateau, Canada , Houston, Wesley, Rekstis, Avendt, Garrison, Donald Ulivi, Mig- liorati, Jablinsky, Ulrich, Ennis Smith, and Lange. 23 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order " 25 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX A RECORD OF SHOP EMPLOYEES LAID OFF DURING ENTIRE YEAR OF 1960 Name Original date hired Date laid off Date recalled Rate at lav off Robert Adair---------------------------------- 12-17-53 7-15-60 -------------- $2 50 Tennyson Adkins------------------------------ 8-31-53 7-15-60 -------------- 3 40 Thomas Alexiou------------------------------- 1-14-54 7-15-60 -------------- 2 80 Robert Archer--------------------------------- 8-30-54 7-15-60 -------------- 2 90 Vito Arcilesi ----------------------------------- 3-17-55 7-15-60 -------------- 2 20 Alonzo Barnes--------------------------------- 1-28-60 7-15-60 -------------- 1 80 Leo F Bator ----------------------------------- 3-17-53 7-15-60 -------------- 2 85 Richard 0 Bloomfield_________________________ 8-13-52 7-15-60 -------------- 3 75 George Bodner_--_ ---------------- 5-14-56 7-15-60 -------------- 2 35 Frank Buczynski ------------------------------ 1-4-60 6-24-60 -------------- 1 00 Richard C Burke------------------------------ 2-16-60 6-24-60 -------------- 1 90 Lloyd H Carhary----------------------------- 1-7-60 6-24-60 -------------- 1 90 Placido D'Angelo------------------------------ 7-11-51 7-15-60 -------------- 3 05 232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD RECORD OF SHOP EMPLOYEES LAID OFF DURING ENTIRE YEAR OF 1960-Con. Name Original date hired Date laid off Date recalled Rate at lay off Richard Dutko________________________________ 5-14-56 7-15-60 -------------- $2 25 Paul Erickson -------------------------------- 9-28-59 3-4-60 -------------- 2 00 William Fowler-------------------------------- 1-26-54 7-15-60 -------------- 2 80 John Gray------------------------------------- 10-24-55 7-15-60 -------------- 2 10 Waldemar L. Haarz____________________________ 9-8-55 7-15-60 -------------- 2 25 Lee J Hartman________________________________ 10-26-59 1-8-60 -------------- 3 15 Myron Heidenreich____________________________ 1-6-60 7-15-60 -------------- 3 25 Belvin Henderson______________________________ 7-28-54 7-15-60 -------------- 2 70 Marvin G. Hunt_______________________________ 12-7-59 3-4-60 -------------- 3 75 Simon Sdalski --------------------------------- 4-9-10 7-15-60 -------------- 2 00 Mitchell Joachun______________________________ 4-2-56 7-15-60 -------------- 2 35 David Jolly ------------------------------------ 1-18-60 7-15-60 -------------- 1 90 Thomas Jozetowicz_____________________________ 1-16-60 2-19-60 -------------- 2 10 George Karwowski ----------------------------- 6-5-51 7-15-60 -------------- 2 95 Richard Katchuba_____________________________ 4-13-56 7-15-60 -------------- 2 75 Peter Kiedrowski------- ---------------------- 9-8-52 7-15-60 -------------- 2 75 Frank Kmdziera------------------------------- 1-18-60 7-15-60 -------------- 2 00 John Koemgbauer______________________________ 6-24-55 7-15-60 -------------- 3 55 Peter Krevdo ---------------------------------- 7-26-54 7-15-60 -------------- 2 25 Robert Leiter__________________________________ 9-15-59 7-15-60 -------------- 1 70 Al Lipinski------------------------------------ 4-11-60 7-15-60 -------------- 2 50 Donald Lowell--------------------------------- 9-14-53 7-15-60 -------------- 2 75 Joseph Lukaszek_______________________________ 7-20-59 6-24-60 -------------- 2 25 Francis Meraw--------------------------------- 7-23-54 7-15-60 ------------- 2 90 Marvin Mizelewski---------------------------- 6-1-59 7-15-60 -------------- 1 85 Charles Morrison______________________________ 9-3-57 7-15-60 -------------- 1 90 Theophile Mroczkowski________________________ 8-2-54 7-15-60 -------------- 2 40 Robert Nix------------------------------------ 9-14-59 7-15-60 -------------- 2 75 Emil Onyskivich ------------------------------- 8-20-57 7-15-60 -------------- 2 50 Stanley Osinski-------------------------------- 12-21-59 6-24-60 -------------- 1 90 Donald Otto----------------------------------- 1-440 6-24-60 -------------- 1 90 Micbael Polanski______________________________ 1-81-60 7-15-f0 -------------- 1 90 Mike Popa------------------------------------- 3-1-53 7-15-60 -------------- 3 00 PaulRidky,Jr--------------- -------------- --- 4-10-56 7-15-60 -------------- 2 20 John Salo, Jr----------------------------------- 3-24-53 7-15-60 -------------- 2 65 Steven Simunic, Jr_____________________________ 7-31-57 7-15-60 -------------- 2 90 Charles E. Smith______________________________ 6-15-59 7-15-60 -------------- 1 95 Lmdel Smith t_________________________________ 12-21-59 6-24-60 -------------- 1 90 Robert C. Smith_______________________________ 1-4-60 6-24-60 -------------- 1 80 John Smoot ------------------------------------ 7-20-59 6-24-60 -------------- 1 90 Henry Suwmski_______________________________ 10-31-55 7-15-60 -------------- 2 55 Edward Taylor________________________________ 5-18-53 7-15-60 -------------- 3 25 John Tomczak_________________________________ 8-31-54 7-15-60 -------------- 2 40 Joseph Tupiak--------------------------------- 6-22-59 7-15-60 -------------- 1 85 Brian Uhl -------------------------------------- 10-9-55 7-15-60 -------------- 2 10 Maurice Van Robays---- ----------- ----------- 3-21-60 7-15-60 -------------- 2 20 Philip Vmcek ---------------------------------- 1-18-60 2-19-60 -------------- 1 95 Howard Weiss_________________________________ 4-7-52 7-15-60 -------------- 2 75 William Wheatly---- ------------------- ------- 1-11-60 7-15-60 -------------- 2 10 Charles Worthing______________________________ 8-2-56 7-15-60 -------------- 2 85 Hubert Barnes_________________________________ 2-8-53 7-15-60 7-5-61 2 20 Abraham Haddad______________________________ 12-10-51 7-15-60 7-5-61 3 00 Henry Kopec ---------------------------------- 5-7-56 10-3-58 12-1-58 2 25 Michael Krupa--------------------------------- 1-4-60 7-15-60 7-24-61 2 00 Frank Klupp---------------------------------- 7-11-56 7-15-60 5-25-62 2 55 James Leonard_________________________________ 1-5-60 7-15-60 6-14-61 2 25 Peter Quinlan___________________ _____ 2-17-53 7-15-60 8-14-61 2.90 David Reakoff_________________________________ 2-16-60 7-15-60 7-10-61 2.00 William Rood---------------------------------- 9-12-55 7-15-60 -------------- 2 15 Justin Richards ___________________--_________ 8-2-52 7-15-60 8-8-60 3.00 Eugene Suwmski______________________________ 1-7-60 5-15-60 11-9-60 2 40 RESEARCH DESIGNING SERVICE, INC. 233 RECORD OF SHOP EMPLOYEES DISCHARGED DURING ENTIRE YEAR OF 1960-NONE RECORD OF SHOP EMPLOYEES LAID OFF DURING ENTIRE YEAR OF 1961 Name Original date hired Date laid off Date recalled Rate at lay off Andrew Billock________________________________ 8-5-54 3-10-61 -------------- $2 40 William Blackburn---------------------------- 8-14-61 10-6-61 -------------- 1 70 Patrick Bonnell -------------------------------- 7-17-61 10-6-61 -------------- 1.70 Robert Butcher________________________________ 1-16-60 2-5-61 -------------- 2 75 William Canada_______________________________ 6-20-61 11-3-61 1-8-62 1.95 Joseph Candela, Jr_____________________________ 7-13-61 10-6-61 -------------- 1 70 Joseph Candela, Sr_____________________________ 3-14-55 3-17-61 -------------- 2 60 Gerald Davis---------------------------------- 9-12-55 3-10-61 -------------- 2 55 Charles Dewey--------------------------------- 6-19-61 10-6-61 -------------- 2.85 Allen Dutch----------------------------------- 3-16-53 2-3-61 -------------- 3.25 Orm Fairbanks-------------------------------- 6-13-61 11-3-61 -------------- 2 75 David Friese----------------------------------- 8-7-61 10-6-61 -------------- 1.70 Robert Gottfried_______________________________ 4-14-52 3-17-61 -------------- 3.90 Bobby Gene Hahn_____________________________ 9-13-54 3-10-61 -------------- 2 60 John A. Hams--------------------------------- 10-25-55 3-17-61 -------------- 2.25 Donald W. Hembaucb.________________________ 3-18-57 11-3-61 8-30-61 1.95 Horace Hooks---------------------------------- 1-7-54 2-24-61 -------------- 2 50 Alfred Julian----------------------------------- 104-54 3-17-61 1-15-62 3 00 Otto Krueger ---------------------------------- 9-12-55 3-8-61 -------------- 3.75 Clayton N. Lee-------------------------------- 7-7-61 11-3-61 -------------- 1 70 Walter Leja----------------------------------- 12-28-55 11-3-61 ------------- 2 25 James Lenk ------------------------------------ 6-25-56 2-24-61 -------------- 2 05 Thomas Leonard________________________ ------ 8-7-61 11-3-61 -------------- 1 70 Bernard Leske_________________________________ 8-14-61 10-20-61 -------------- 3 00 Frank Lung ------------------------------------ 5-6-57 10-6-61 8-3-61 2 00 Arthur McPherlm_____________________________ 9-7-54 3-17-61 -------------- 2 90 Antonino Orlando 7-10-61 10-6-61 -------------- 2 20 Wesley Quinn---------------------------------- 6-19-61 10-6-61 -------------- 2.10 Carl Rowlett 6-27-55 2-24-61 -------------- 2 60 Lawrence Scheive------------------------------ 8-3-61 10-20-61 -------------- 2 50 Ronald C. Sherman 8-1-55 2-24-61 5-21-62 2 55 Earl Turcotte---------------------------------- 11-26-56 10-27-61 -------------- 2 20 Elton Weatherly_______________________________ 6-9-52 2-24-61 ------------- 2 65 Geno Bartoletti 4-28-52 2-24-61 6-19-61 3 40 Hilary A. Kutelle, Jr___________________________ 7-17-53 2-24-61 9-18-61 2 90 Michael Lacny--------------------------------- 8-6-51 3-10-61 11-2-61 2.20 Ronald Morrison 6-2-52 3-17-61 7-31-61 2 50 Robert Sager----------------------------------- 1-4-54 2-24-61 4-17-61 3.00 Roger Slawson,Jr______________________________ 9-53 3-10-61 9-12-61 2 20 Donald Stepke--------------------------------- 11-27-53 2-24-61 9-20-61 2 50 James Stevenson 4-9-56 3-10-61 11-2-61 2 35 Larry F. Wilson------------------------------- 4-17-56 2-24-61 9-19-61 2 40 RECORD OF SHOP EMPLOYEES DISCHARGED DURING ENTIRE YEAR OF 1961-NONE APPENDIX B NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discriminate against our employees in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, because of their membership in or activities on behalf of Local 155, International Union , United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricul- tural Implement Workers of America, (UAW) AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. WE WILL offer to the following employees immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their 234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against them: Clarence Cherry Edward Richter William C. Harris Roy Ligon, Jr. Robert Heatherly Walter Kowalski Stephen Aszurek Ramon Szawronski Lyle Locke Eugene Shockley WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union membership or activities or threaten them with reprisal because of such activity. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form labor organizations , to join or assist the above-named Union, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos- ing, to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities , except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring mem- bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a)(3) of the Act, as amended. All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining members of Local 155, International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, (UAW) AFL-CIO, or of any other labor organization , except to the extent that this right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, aQ authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended. RESEARCH DESIGNING SERVICE, INC., Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) NOTE.-We will notify any of the above -named employees presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the Armed Forces. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 501 Book Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard , Detroit 26, Michigan, Telephone No. Wood- ward 3-9330, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Middletown Manufacturing Company, Inc. and International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 9-CA-2565 and 9-RC-47.95. March 7, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On October 4, 1962, Trial Examiner Reeves R. Hilton issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that the Respondent had not engaged in certain unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dis- missed in its entirety, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Re- port. He also recommended that the objections to conduct affecting results of election, filed by the Petitioner, be overruled. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. Respondent filed a brief in reply to those of the General Counsel and the Charging Party. 141 NLRB No. 25.