Amerace Corp.

ACE COMB COMPANY & ACE BOWLING COMPANY, ETC. 489 (b) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order and report on objections, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.ie It is further recommended that the Board set aside the election conducted on February 2, 1962, and direct a new election at an appropriate time pursuant to the stipulation for certification upon consent election. 10 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 NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES As recommended by a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board we are posting this notice to inform our employees of the rights guaranteed them by the National Labor Relations Act: WE WILL NOT interrogate any of our employees with respect to their views concerning, or sympathies for, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT create the impression of surveillance of the union activities of our employees; attempt to persuade any of our employees to tell other employees not to vote in an election ; threaten our employees with discharge, closing the plant, changes in our policies about transfers , or other reprisals if the Union should win an election; or instruct our employees to vote against the Union. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form labor or- ganizations, to join or assist the above-named Union or other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as authorized by the National Labor Relations Act. E-TowN SPORTSWEAR , CORP., 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, Transit Building, Fourth and Vine Streets, Cincinnati 2, Ohio, Telephone No. Dunbar 1-1420, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Ace Comb Company and Ace Bowling Company , Division of Amerace Corporation and United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 20-CA- 1286. March 14, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On December 20, 1962, Trial Examiner Owsley Vose issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Inter- 141 NLRB No. 35. 490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD mediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel [Members Rodgers, Fanning, and Brown]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the entire record in this case, including the Intermediate Report and the ex- ceptions and brief, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations 1 of the Trial Examiner with the modification and addition noted below. ORDER The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner.2 1 For the reasons stated In the dissenting opinion in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co , 138 NLRB 716, Member Rodgers would not award Interest on backpay. z The notice appended to the Intermediate Report is hereby amended to conform with the Order by deleting the paragraph starting with the words, "WE WILL NOT interfere with," and by inserting after the paragraph which starts with the words, "«'E WILL NOT threaten," the following paragraph: "WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act " The following note shall be added to the notice immediately below the signature* NOTE -We will notify the above-named employee, if he is presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of his right to full reinstatement upon applica- tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the Armed Forces. INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge filed by the Charging Party on May 25, 1962, the General Counsel on July 13, 1962, issued a complaint alleging that the Respondents by means of threats, promises of benefits, and acts of interrogation, had interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and by discharging George Woodliff, a comb plant employee, had discouraged membership in the Charging Party in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. The Respondents filed an answer denying the commission of any unfair labor practices. The case was heard before Trial Examiner Owsley Vose at Booneville, Arkansas, on Septem- ber 5 and 6, 1962. All parties appeared, were represented at the hearing, and were afforded a full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to present oral argument. The General Counsel and the Respondents have filed competent and thorough briefs which have been fully considered. Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE RESPONDENTS' BUSINESSES The Respondents, Ace Comb Company and Ace Bowling Company, Division of Amerace Corporation, are Delaware corporations. Respondents operate adjoining plants in Booneville, combs being made by the Respondent Ace Comb Company in the one, and bowling balls being manufactured in the other by the Ace Bowling Company, Division of Amerace Corporation. The two plants are operated as a single integrated enterprise under the management of John E. Olsen, plant manager. Annually, each corporation obtains more than $50,000 worth of raw materials from out-of-State sources and ships in excess of $50,000 worth of finished products to out-of- State destinations. Upon these facts I find, as the Respondents admit, that they are ACE COMB COMPANY & ACE BOWLING COMPANY, ETC. 491 engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it is appropriate for the Board to assert jurisdiction. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The organization of the Union About December 18, 1961, John P. Taylor, an International representative of the Union, called on Newell Fletcher at Magazine, Arkansas,' to seek his help in organizing the Company's employees? Fletcher had voluntarily quit the Company's employ less than 3 weeks earlier because of dissatisfaction with the Company's treat- ment of him. Fletcher thereafter became a volunteer organizer for the Union, and for the next 2 or 3 months spent considerable time accompanying Taylor in calls on the Company's employees at their homes. Taylor arranged a meeting of employees for December 27, 1961, but no one showed up. After Taylor had a similar experience in connection with a second meeting which he scheduled in the second half of January, Taylor decided to conduct "a quiet campaign without any leaders." With two exceptions, Taylor himself personally obtained the signatures on all of the union authorization cards signed by employees. Taylor cautioned the employees signing cards "to remain as quiet as possible about their feelings in the matter." It appears that the union adherents observed these instructions. For the first few weeks Taylor confined his organizing activities to the area around Magazine, and the outlying areas around Booneville. On Saturday, January 13, 1962, Taylor and Fletcher visited Booneville for the first time. Taylor parked his car outside of O'Neill's Grocery in town. George Woodliff, the employee whose dis- charge is here involved, got in Taylor's car and talked with Taylor and Fletcher for about half an hour. Woodliff signed a union authorization card on this occasion. Woodliff offered to introduce Taylor to his brother, who was also employed at the plant. Taylor and Fletcher followed Woodliff down to the Dairy Dip Restaurant When Woodliff's brother came out of the restaurant, a lengthy conversation took place at Taylor's car out in front. After signing a union authorization card, Woodliff talked with all the employees in his immediate work area about the Union. Employees from other areas ap- proached him from time to time with questions about the Union. To such em- ployees as he concluded were sympathetic to the union movement, Woodliff ex- pressed himself as being in favor of the Union. One of these, Noble Rogers, it subsequently developed, was unsympathetic toward the Union. This appears from the fact that Rogers served as an observer for the Company at the first election. Newell Fletcher's custom during the period he was attempting to interest the employees living in Booneville in the Union was to park his pickup truck on one of the main access roads to the plant while the employees were going to work between 7 and 8 a in Most of the Company's employees used this road to get to the plant. On several occasions Woodliff stopped by and visited with Fletcher. Woodliff, as Fletcher testified, did this more openly than other employees. In the latter half of January the Company admittedly received information that the organizing drive was in progress. High officials of the Company testified that they knew that Newell Fletcher was active in these efforts, and that he was accom- panying Union Representative Taylor on visits to the employees' homes. This testi- mony is treated further below. By the time of Woodliff's discharge on February 12, 1962, International Repre- sentative Taylor had succeeded in signing up 25 to 30 employees. Taylor continued his efforts to sign up employees and on March 1. 1962, filed with the Regional Office a petition for an investigation and certification of bargaining representatives. B. The circumstances of Woodlii's discharge Woodliff was hired by the Company on June 1, 1960, and assigned to work in the comb plant as a comb stripper on the night shift He was transferred to operat- ing a press on December 1, 1960. Woodliff satisfactorily performed both of these operations. 1 Magazine Is about 7 miles from Booneville. 2 Hereafter, the Respondents jointly will be referred to as the Company. 492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On October 3, 1961, pursuant to his request to be transferred to the day shift, the Company transferred Woodliff to the position of warmup operator on the cal- ender crew . After about a week's instruction in the operation by his predecessor, Robert Rogers, Woodliff took over the operation on his own . His immediate super- visor was Earl Maxwell , the foreman , who was in charge of the entire day shift in the comb plant. Over Maxwell in the plant was Henry Wagner who , as supervisor of manufacture, was in charge of both shifts at the comb plant. The warmup mill to which Woodhff was assigned is the device utilized by the Company to work the raw rubber mixture, out of which most of the Company 's combs are made, into a suitable temperature and consistency to be capable of being processed by the calender. The calender operation supplies the blanks in which , in a subsequent pressing opera- tion, the combs are pressed . The finished blanks may be varying sizes and thick- nesses, i .e., either narrow ones just large enough to receive the impression of 1 large comb, or wide ones which are large enough to be pressed into 8 to 10 small combs. The calender basically is a pair of rollers on top of one another, through which is fed the rubber mixture from the warmup mill. This mixture is fed on top of two thin sheets of lead which have been placed side by side on one of the rollers. After three revolutions of the rollers , placing three thin layers of rubber on the sheets of lead, the rubber topped sheets of lead are cut off the roller onto a moving horizontal conveyor belt. As soon as the two sheets of rubber topped lead are rolled out full length on the conveyor belt, the calender operators place sheets of lead on top of each of the two rubber covered sheets on the conveyor belt, making two rubber sandwiches about 9 feet long. These sandwiches travel along the conveyor belt through a press, which squeezes the sandwiches to the thickness of the blanks being made. From the press, these sandwiches travel along the conveyor belt to the knife, which automatically cuts off the individual blanks of the size desired. Among the duties of warmup mill operator are the lifting of 250 to 300 pounds of cured rubber mixture onto the large revolving warmup mill , watching it to see that it is mixing and heating properly, and then, when it reaches the proper con- sistency, cutting off batches of from 25 to 35 pounds of mixture and transferring them to the small, or release , warmup mill. This also is a revolving device. The warmup operator is responsible for the transfer of the warmed up mixture from the small warmup mill to the calender and for keeping it from running out of mixture This is accomplished by means of a narrow, sharply inclined conveyor system which runs from the small warmup mill to the calender . At the proper time the warmup operator starts a knife which automatically cuts a narrow strip of rubber off the small warmup mill and starts the narrow strip (2 to 3 inches ) of mixture up the inclined conveyor system to the calender . The warmup operator must see to it that this strip of mixture continued to move up the conveyor system and must take care of it when breaks occur, which happens not infrequently . The requirements of the calender for rubber mixture vary depending upon the size and thickness of the blank being run . The warmup operator keeps the calender supplied with the proper quantity of rubber mixture by adjusting the speed of the calender rollers . This is done by means of a rheostat on the end of the calender . The rheostat is calibrated from 0 to 100. For normal operations rheostat settings of from 35 to 70 are used. Robert Rogers , who trained Woodliff as warmup operator , instructed him to keep the rheostat setting at between 45 and 55, and thereafter Woodliff attempted to run the calender at this speed , changing the speed from time to time to correspond to the varying size and thickness of blanks being run. During a day's operations, the type of blanks being run may be changed several times . This requires the warmup mill operator frequently to change the rheostat setting on the calender . When very narrow blanks are being run, the warmup mill operator has to slow down the calender because the automatic knife at the end of the calender process operates at one speed only and cannot keep up with a fast setting of the calender . Wide, thick blanks use more rubber mixture than narrow blanks and require a slower rheostat setting on the calender to avoid running out of the rubber mixture at the calender. When wide, thick blanks are being run , the warmup mill operator 's job is more difficult because of the greater quantity of warmed -up mixture to be supplied to the calender. A practice which is sometimes utilized to prevent the calender from running out of rubber, but which is not desirable from the standpoint of supplying the calender with mixture at the proper temperature , is the stacking by hand of quantities of rubber mixture at the top of the inclined conveyor system. During Woodliff's tenure as warmup mill operator, he was forbidden to engage in this practice Woodliff's successor on the warmup mill engaged in the practice with no hindrance from management. ACE COMB COMPANY & ACE BOWLING COMPANY, ETC. 493 Differences of opinion between Supervisor Wagner and the warmup crew, and particularly the warmup mill operator , about the proper calender operation speed have been longstanding . The problem became sufficiently serious in the summer of 1961, so that a delegation of affected employees , including the then warmup mill operator, Robert Rogers, complained to Plant Manager Olsen that they were being required to run the calender at too fast a speed for efficient and economical operation. Olsen agreed to permit the calender to be operated at a slower speed for a trial period. However, after the Company installed some mechanical improve- ments in the operation of the wide horizontal conveyor system Wagner again in- sisted that the calender be operated at the former speed, which Rogers regarded as too fast. Up until the middle of December, both Supervisor Wagner and Foreman Maxwell complimented Woodliff on his operation of the warmup mil13 According to the testimony of Woodliff , the first time any critical remarks were made by any supervisor concerning his work as warmup mill operator was on January 18 or 19, 1962, after he had signed a union card . Woodliff testified that on this occasion, Supervisor Wagner, accompanied by Foreman Maxwell , came up to him at his machine and the following conversation ensued: He (Wagner ) came back there ... and said, "I see the machine is on 45.... Why don't you have the machine running faster than this ." I said that was the speed that I had always run this machine . He said, "The machine is supposed to run at 55 or 60." I said, "I cannot run the machine that fast and keep up with it, keep rubber in it." He said, "That is the speed we expect you to run it on. If you cannot run it at that speed, we will have to get somebody else who can, and you will have to go back to doing whatever you can do." Foreman Maxwell testified that Supervisor Wagner spoke to Woodliff about his work in Maxwell's presence on three different occasions commencing in December 1961. Maxwell also testified that he, himself, had spoken to Woodliff about "why he could not get his production up" on more than one occasion . Maxwell gave no further details concerning his reprimands of Woodliff . Plant Manager Olsen's tes- timony is that reports were made to him that Woodliff's production had dropped off commencing "sometime in the latter part of January. The 15th of January on." Wagner testified that he had spoken to Woodliff about the way he was doing his job more than a dozen times beginning in November 1961 , that sometimes he himself would set up the rheostat controlling the speed of the calender and that later on, upon returning to the calender , he would discover that Woodliff had turned it down in his absence. Woodliff's response when Wagner spoke to him about the speed of the calender was frequently nothing more than a blank stare, according to Wagner. Wagner brought out at the hearing for the first time that he had been keeping a record of the times on which Woodliff completed the day's quota of blanks, which showed that he did not get done until after 4 p.m. on an average during the last month of his employment. This is treated below in connection with the discussion of the Company's contentions. For the reasons stated below, I cannot accept Wagner's testimony that he had spoken to Woodliff about his work more than a dozen times commencing in November 1961. It is not consistent with either the testimony of Foreman Maxwell or that of Plant Manager Olsen above referred to. While Wagner's testimony gives the im- pression that he began to make written memorandums concerning Woodliff's slow work commencing in November 1961, when he first began to notice Woodliff al- legedly slowing down , the record shows that the first such written memorandum is dated January 22, 1961, after Woodliff signed up in the Union . The record also shows that none of these written reprimands was brought to Woodliff 's attention, although as Wagner admitted , this is customary in most cases. Logically, if Wagner was sincerely interested in prodding Woodliff into improving his work rather than building a paper record against him, it would seem essential that Woodliff be in- formed of these reprimands . I regard Wagner's testimony that Woodliff's work started getting worse after but 2 or 3 weeks on the job and that he had spoken to Woodliff more than a dozen times about his work as an exaggeration . Throughout 3 This Is the credited testimony of Woodliff. Maxwell testified that Woodliff did excep- tionally well when he first started out and that he praised him for doing so However, Maxwell indicated that in December he became dissatisfied with Woodliff 's performance as warmup operator Supervisor Wagner, who was primarily responsible for Woodliff's discharge, testified that Woodliff started slowing down after 2 or 3 weeks on the opera- tion For reasons more [fully discussed below , I do not credit Wagner 's testimony in this regard. 494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD his testimony Wagner exhibited a tendency to make sweeping statements supporting the company position. Wagner was not frank, in my opinion, in not acknowledging the difficulties of the warmup operator's job. Wagner's testimony suggests, contrary to what the record shows to be the fact, that almost any employee could perform the warmup operator's job to his satisfaction. Furthermore, as pointed out below, Wagner's testimony on cross-examination concerning his knowledge of the extent of organizing activities in the plant is evasive and inconsistent. Under all the cir- cumstances, including Wagner's apparent willingness to give the wrong impression about the date on which he commenced writing up reprimands regarding Woodliff, I am constrained to reject Wagner's testimony concerning his reprimands of Woodliff and to accept Woodliff's testimony that the first time he was seriously cautioned about the slowness of his work was on January 18, 1962.4 About February 1, 1962, Wagner went to John E. Olsen, the manager of both plants, and insisted that Woodliff be discharged immediately, stating that at the speed at which Woodliff ran the calender the calender crew had very little time to devote stripping blanks and rolling lead, which were a part of their duties after the day's quota of blanks had been completed on the calender. Wagner testified that the Company's schedule of operations contemplated that the daily production of blanks on the calender would be completed in about 6 hours, leaving about 2 hours for the calender crew to devote to these duties. In this 6-hour period, according to Wagner, the calender crew could normally produce more than enough blanks to keep both the day and the night shifts supplied with blanks for their operations. Plant Manager Olsen suggested that Woodliff be given more time and help in mastering the job. Wagner reluctantly agreed, after obtaining Olsen's agreement that Woodliff might be discharged within 2 weeks if he did not show an improvement during this period. On February 8, 1962, Wagner again complained to Woodliff that he was running the calender too slowly. Woodliff again informed Wagner that he "could not run it any faster and keep up with it." Then the following conversation occurred, ac- cording to Woodliff's credited testimony: Again he (Wagner) made the same statement that if I could not run the machine at that speed and keep up with it, I would have to go back to doing whatever I could do and he would have to get somebody who could run this machine. He said that there were plenty of boys in the plant that he believed could run the machine at that speed and keep up with it. I told him at that time that I believed that probably that would be the best thing to do because I did not intend to work myself to death back here on this machine. I did not intend to be driven back here and work beyond what I could do.5 On the morning of February 12, 1962, Wagner came by the calender and observed that the rheostat was set at a much slower speed than he desired for the production of blanks for the type 458 combs. Wagner looked up Foreman Maxwell and the two supervisors returned to the calender. After showing Maxwell the setting on the rheostat, Wagner asked Woodliff why the calender was set so low. Woodliff replied that he could not run the calender any faster. Wagner and Maxwell, after conferring with one another in the office, summoned Woodliff to the conference room. Wagner reminded Woodliff that he had asked him to set up the speed of the calender and pointed out that he had failed to do so. Woodliff again explained that he could not physically keep up with the machine at a faster setting. In the course of the lengthy conversation which followed, Woodliff stated among other thines that he liked his job with the Company and would like to keep it, but not if he had to be driven beyond what he was capable of doing, that he would get another job first.6 4In so finding I do not mean to imply that Wagner and Maxwell had not spoken to Woodliff about his work in general terms prior to this time. But this was the first time Wagner and Maxwell indicated to him that there was a serious problem about his work which would have to be remedied "Wagner was not questioned about this conversation specifically However, Wagner denied ever having any conversation with Woodliff about transferring him to another operation if he could not speed up his work on the warmup mill According to Wagner, at some unstated time he talked with Woodliff about replacing him "if he did not do better and show more progress" I have found Wagner to be an unreliable witness in various respects and do not credit his testimony in this regard 6 This is Woodliff's credited testimony. According to Maxwell, Woodliff stated that he was not going to kill himself doing the job. I do not credit Wagner's testimony that Woodliff stated on this occasion that he was not going to try to do better. I believe that this is another exaggeration on Wagner's part. ACE COMB COMPANY & ACE BOWLING COMPANY, ETC. 495 After some further discussion, Wagner left the room, and upon his return handed Woodliff his final paychecks. On the evening of February 12, the day on which Woodhff was discharged, Bill Young, the foreman on the night shift in the comb plant, commented to employee Marvin Tuckness that "he figured that the reason that George [Woodliff] got fired [was] because he listened to Newell Fletcher." On various other occasions Tuckness had heard Foreman Young refer to the fact that Newell Fletcher "was working for ,the Union." 7 Leon Crowley testified that on February 13, 1962, Supervisor Wagner brought J. D. Young, an employee, back to the warmup mill and told Robert Rogers, who had formerly been the warmup mill operator, that he wanted Young "trained in right" on the warmup mill. When Crowley approached Wagner, the latter remarked to Crowley, referring to Woodliff, "George would have made a good hand back there, but he got mixed up with the wrong people." Crowley further testified, as stated below, that 2 months later Foreman Maxwell related to him that Supervisor Wagner had previously told him that Woodliff was "a good hand" but got "mixed up with the wrong people." Neither Wagner nor Maxwell specifically denied Crowley's testimony in this regard. About a week after his discharge Woodliff went back to the plant and talked to Plant Manager Olsen. Woodliff explained that he felt that he had been unjustly dis- charged, and stated that he wanted to explain his side of the case and see whether the Company would consider rehiring him. When he asserted that he had been doing his job and was making production, Olsen replied as follows: "It is not so much your job as it is your attitude for [which] we discharged you . . You were asked to speed up your machine, and you did not do it." Woodliff pointed out that Wagner had said "that if [he] could not do the job . [he] would have to go back to whatever [he] could do in the plant, as a new hand, and he would get somebody else." Olsen said that the Company could not do that. When Woodliff then in- quired why Wagner had made such a suggestion, Olsen did not reply. Woodliff re- marked as he left, "You will be seeing us." When Olsen asked what he meant, Woodliff merely repeated his remark. According to Olsen, Woodliff's cryptic parting remark on this occasion gave him his first intimation that Woodliff might be inter- ested in the Union. The foregoing findings are based on Woodliff's testimony which is not disputed by Olsen. C. Events preceding the elections Pursuant to the petition filed by the Union, an election was held by the Board at the Company's plant on March 21, 1962. After losing this election, the Union filed objections which were sustained by the Regional Director, and a second election was scheduled for May 31, 1962. In the period between the two elections Night Foreman Bill Young actively opposed the Union in conversations with various employees. As indicated above, Bill Young was not called as a witness in this proceeding, and the Company does not dispute the fact that the incidents related below occurred. Young told employee Marvin Tuckness that "Charlie Scott and Lonnie Hefley were for the Union and that they would be fired . when the election was over." To Charles Scott, Foreman Young similarly remarked that "Lonnie Hefley is strong for the Union, and just as soon as the union business is over, we are going to fire him." Foreman Young also spoke to employee Rel Sharp about Scott and Hefley, saying that they "were doing a lot of talking about the Union," and that "after the election" he was going "to put the pressure on." About a week before the second election at the end of May, Foreman Young again approached Marvin Tuckness and said that "Miss Griffin . was wrong" and asked him "to get Thed Turley to talk to her and try to change her over about work- ing for the Union." Tuckness explained that he and Young had had numerous con- versations in which they had referred to "People that were working or voting for the Union men" as being wrong. The night before the second election Foreman Young again requested Tuckness to speak to an employee about her support of the Union. On this occasion Young told Tuckness that he had been told that Judy Wisley "had voted for the Union every time," and asked Tuckness to speak to her, saying that Tuckness could do so but that be (Young) could not. Tuckness disputed with Young the correctness of his information concerning Wisley's asserted prounion sympathies, but nevertheless did as Young bade him. Wisley, as Tuckness expected, confirmed her antiunion position, and asked if Tuckness would mind if she sought to straighten this out with Foreman 7 The foregoing findings are based on Tuckness' undenled testimony. Foreman Young was not called as a witness in this proceeding. 496 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Young. When Young denied having made any such statement, Wisley informed Supervisor Wagner that she was not in favor of the Union. Wagner told Wisley that "there was nobody trying to get her job." 8 In addition to the foregoing incidents which are not denied, there is evidence which is controverted, in part, concerning incidents involving Foreman Maxwell. Leon Crowley testified that about the middle of April Maxwell had stopped by his home to see how Crowley was recovering from an injury which he had suffered at the plant, that Maxwell had said that he had been wanting to talk to Crowley "for a good while" about the "situation" at the plant, about "changing my mind, and go[ing] along with the Company," as Crowley put it. According to Crowley, Maxwell added that Olsen, the manager of both plants, would rather see Crowley and his brother "change our mind more than anybody else in the mill because we could do them the most good." After Maxwell mentioned that "he did not know which way [Robert Rogers, Lonnie Hefley, and Henry Ford] went, voted," the following con- versation ensued, according to Crowley's testimony: "He (Maxwell) asked me how I felt and how I went, and I told him that I did not mind telling him that I voted for the Union in the first election." Crowley's testimony continues: "He said . if they did vote the wrong way, that if he ever needed any credit or anything that it might go against him. That a man would always need a little help sooner or later through the years . . . that Dale Taylor was buying a house, . and he had helped him to get a loan . and . . . that he was worried about Dale, that if it did not go union, . . . he might lose his job, and then he would have a tough time meeting the payments on his place." Maxwell concluded the conversation, so Crowley testified, by saying that "if [he] changed [his] mind and [came] over to the Com- pany's side to talk to Dale." According to Crowley's further testimony, several days later he had a second con- versation with Foreman Maxwell, which he referred to as having been held by the bridge near his home Crowley testified that Maxwell opened the conversation by inquiring whether he had changed his mind and that he replied in the negative Crowley asked whether Maxwell reckoned that Woodliff "would get to go back to work." Maxwell replied that he "just could not say, . that he did not see how they could prove they fired him over the Union " Crowley subsequently recalled that Maxwell also had said on this occasion that Supervisor Wagner had previously told him, referring, I find, to Woodliff, that "George made a good hand, but got mixed up with the wrong people." Foreman Maxwell testified that he had a conversation with Leon Crowley about the Union when he took Crowley home after being injured, but beyond denying generally ever having indicated in any conversation with employees that supporting the Union might make it difficult to obtain credit,9 Maxwell did not give any details concerning this conversation with Leon Crowley, which Maxwell characterized as his first con- versation with Leon Crowley. Rather Maxwell promptly launched into the details of a discussion which he had with Leon's brother, Tommie, by the bridge shortly after leaving Leon at his home. Although Maxwell was not charged with ever having threatened Tommie Crowley, Maxwell denied generally making any threats of any sort during this conversation with Tommie.10 Maxwell later testified that he had had two conversations with the Crowleys before the third conversation with Leon Crowley "at the bridge." According to Maxwell, these conversations occurred when the Crow- leys looked Maxwell up at his home and told him that they were going to get out of the Union. Maxwell denied making "any threats or promises about the Union" on either of these occasions No further details concerning these conversations were fur- nished by Maxwell. The foregoing is the sum and substance of Maxwell's testimony concerning his con- versations with Leon Crowley. Maxwell at no time attempted to explain the conver- sation which Crowley attributed to him at the bridge. There is no specific denial of Crowley's testimony that Maxwell repeated to him Supervisor Wagner's statement to Maxwell that "George made a good hand, but got mixed up with the wrong people " Having observed Maxwell on the stand, I do not believe that he was deliberately trying to confuse matters. However, Maxwell's testimony as a whole rarely joins issue with s The foregoing finding is based on Tuckness' undenied and credited testimony. As noted above , Young was not called as a witness and Wagner was not questioned about this incident. O Maxwell admitted that the name of Dale Taylor came up in this conversation, but testified that he did not remember how it came up. 10 According to Maxwell, Tommie Crowley told him at that time that Taylor, the union organizer , had just left his house, and that he and his wife and Leon were "shook up" about the Union, that he had decided that he wanted "to get back where his friends were," and that he wanted to come up and talk to him. ACE COMB COMPANY & ACE BOWLING COMPANY, ETC. 497 Crowley's and on the crucial issues is lacking in convincing details. On the other hand Crowley told a straightforward story of his conversations with Maxwell. Crowley's manner was sincere. Crowley's account of Maxwell's reference to Dale Taylor's possible loss of credit standing in the community because of his adherence to the Union appears plausible on its face and, in my opinion, is not of a kind likely to be fabricated by an employee. Crowley's testimony in this regard is all the more con- vincing in light of Maxwell's admission that Dale Taylor's name was mentioned in the conversation, and his inability to recall what was responsible for bringing Taylor's name up. While Crowley's testimony exhibits sympathy for the union cause and is not without its inconsistencies, he was certainly more disinterested in the outcome of this proceeding than were either Foreman Maxwell or Supervisor Wagner." In view of the confused nature of Maxwell's testimony, and his failure to offer any explana- tion of substantial portions of Crowley's testimony, some of which were quite damag- ing to the Company's case, I conclude that Crowley's testimony was truthful and that the facts are as set forth in Crowley's testimony discussed above. D. The contentions of the parties; conclusions 1. Woodliff's discharge in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act At the hearing the Company took the position that for some time it had been dis- satisfied with the length of time it took the calender crew to complete its daily quota of blanks with Woodliff operating the warmup mill According to the Company, the calender crew should normally complete its daily production in time to have up to 2 hours to devote to other work, such as stripping blanks and rolling lead. The Com- pany asserts that with Woodliff setting the speed at which the calender is operated, the calender crew had little, if any, time left to spend on other operations. What precipi- tated Woodliff's discharge on February 12, according to Supervisor Wagner, whom I find was solely responsible for discharging Woodliff, was the uncooperative attitude displayed by Woodliff on February 12 when Supervisor Wagner and Foreman Max- well requested him to attempt to speed up the operation of the calender. The General Counsel contends that Woodliff did not operate the calender noticeably slower than other warmup operators did and that Woodliff's attitude in response to Wagner's urgings to increase his speed was understandable in view of Wagner's prior suggestions that he be transferred to other operations in the plant. The General Coun- sel contends that the circumstances of the case warrant the inference that the manage- ment of the Company had knowledge of the fact that Woodliff was a strong supporter of the Union and that Supervisor Wagner seized upon these complaints against Wood- liff as an excuse for getting rid of him because of his prounion sympathies. Although Woodliff admitted that he rarely performed other operations after com- pleting his daily run of blanks, it does not appear that the Company ever called his attention to the problem of finishing early enough so that the calender crew would have time to devote to other work. The testimony of the Company's witnesses is merely that he was repeatedly urged to speed up the operation of the calender. In any event, the credited testimony fails to establish that Woodliff's record as to the average time on which the calender crew completed its daily run of blanks was mate- rially worse than that of other warmup mill operators. The testimony on this point is conflicting. Employees Leon Crowley, Robert Rogers, and Woodliff all testified that while Woodliff was warmup operator, production was completed on an average day between 2:30 and 3:30 p.m. Both Crowley and Rogers, who had an opportunity to observe the operation of the calender crew before, during, and after Woodliff's tenure as warmup operator, testified that the crew finished its daily run about the same average time each day regardless of who was operating the warmup mill The record indicates that the daily production quotas remained about the same throughout this whole period. Rogers, who preceded Woodliff as warmup operator and who trained both Woodliff and his successor, J. D. Young, testified that begining in the period while he was the warmup operator, he commenced keeping records of the number of cylinders produced by the calender crew until noon each day. A cylinder is the rubber coated lead sheet which is cut off after three thin layers of rubber have been added by three revolutions of the calender On his own initiative, Rogers continued to keep these figures during the periods that Woodliff and J. D. Young were serving as warmup operators. According to Rogers, who impressed me as being very careful not to overstate matters, his records indicated 11 Prior to the hearing Crowley had left the Company's employ voluntarily to accept a better job at Fort Smith. 498 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that his (Roger's) average production of cylinders until noon was 205, Woodliff's 200, and J. D. Young's 180.12 On the other hand there is the testimony of J. D. Young, who succeeded Woodliff as warmup operator, and Marvin McLemore, now a foreman in the bowling ball plant but formerly a calender mill operator, that in their experience it ordinarily would take the calender crew only about 6 hours to complete the required number of blanks per day. Supervisor Wagner also testified to the same effect. In addition, as indicated above, Wagner testified that he had been keeping a record on a sheet of paper of the time the calender crew completed its regular production work each day. This was the first time Wagner disclosed to Woodliff that he had been keeping such a record. It was not mentioned to him at the time of his discharge. This sheet of paper was received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. It contains entries commencing with January 9 and continuing for the last 24 days that Woodliff worked at the plant. Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 indicates that the calender crew completed its run on an average during these 24 days a little after 4 p.m. Since the day shift began at 8 a.m., this indicates that over 71/2 hours were taken by the calender crew to complete the day's run during Woodliff's tenure as warmup operator. Weighing the conflicting testimony concerning the comparative performance of the various warmup mill operators, I concluded that although Woodliff was a little slower in his handling of the operation than Rogers and Woodliff's successor, J. D. Young, the disparity between Woodliff's performance and that of the others was not as great as indicated in Wagner's testimony. I cannot accept Respondent's Exhibit No. 1-the listing of the hours on which Woodliff allegedly completed his daily production of blanks in the last month of his employment-at its face value. It stands on no better footing than Wagner's testimony as a whole, which I have found to be unreliable. Although Wagner testified that he had made other similar special records of the performance of other employees, including a record of the hours J. D. Young finished his daily productive work, he failed to produce any such records at the hearing, although he was in effect challenged by the General Counsel to do so. I do not credit Wagner's testimony that he had misplaced the record which he had kept of Young's daily hours. This was a record allegedly kept after the Company had been given reason to believe that Woodliff's discharge would be questioned. Under all the circumstances, I cannot believe that it was sheer hap- penstance which resulted in Wagner's hanging on to the older record which was damaging to Woodliff's case and his losing the newer record which might have been helpful to Woodliff's case. Furthermore it is to be noted that the Company has an official form, called a part-time ticket, on which the calender crew is supposed to record the time each day on which they complete their work on the calender and start their part-time work. However, Wagner testified that the calender crew did not regularly follow the Company's instructions to fill out a part-time ticket and that they were only "partly kept." How much more convincing in this proceeding, and how much more effective in inducing Woodliff to speed up his work at the warmup mill, it would have been had Wagner insisted upon the calender crew fol- lowing the Company's regular instructions regarding the filling out of part-time tickets, rather than starting to keep this secret record which, as the General Counsel argues, is susceptible of the criticism that it could have been prepared after the event. With respect to the Company's contention that it was the uncooperative attitude displayed by Woodliff in the interview just before his discharge which precipitated it, I have already found that Woodliff stated on this occasion that he wanted to keep his job, but not if he had to be driven beyond his capacity, that he would look for another job first. Under all the circumstances of the case, and particularly the fact that Wagner, long before the advent of the Union, had been attempting to get the warmup mill operators to run the calender at a faster speed, I find that Woodliff's at- titude on this occasion was such as to justify Wagner in taking some action with re- spect to Woodliff. In these circumstances the question before me here, as in the Onan case,13 is "not only whether there was a proper cause for the discharge of the 12 In view of the fact that Rogers no longer had the actual records of his own and Woodliff's performance, I have considered whether Rogers' recollection of the results of his checks on the comparative performance of himself and Woodliff might not be faulty. However, I have concluded that an employee sufficiently interested in the results to run the checks on his own initiative would not be likely to forget the results of anything that important to him. As indicated above, Rogers impressed me as a completely sincere witness, 13 David W. Onan, et at., d/b/a D. W. Onan & Sons v. N.L.R.B., 139 F. 2d 728, 730 (C.A. 8). ACE COMB COMPANY & ACE BOWLING COMPANY, ETC. 499 employees in question, but also, conceding such cause, whether the [Company] acted upon it, or for reasons prohibited by the Act." For the reasons stated below, I find that the Company discharged Woodliff for reasons prohibited by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. As stated above, Leon Crowley testified that on the day after Woodliff's discharge, when Wagner brought J. D. Young back to take Woodliff's place on the warmup mill, Wagner remarked, referring to Woodliff, that "George would have made a good hand back there, but he got mixed up with the wrong people." As further stated above, there is also testimony that Foreman Maxwell subsequently related to Leon Crowley the fact that Wagner had previously made a similar comment to him about Woodliff's being "mixed up with the wrong people." Crowley's testimony is not specifically denied by either Wagner or Maxwell. Nor was any effort made to explain what was meant by Wagner in referring to Woodliff's association with "the wrong people." Absent.-any explanation, a logical inference as to Wagner's meaning in the context in which this remark was made-with a union organizing drive known to have been in progress for about a month-is that Wagner was referring to Woodhff's association with union supporters.14 In view of this fact, and the further fact that Crowley's testimony above related, if credited, casts revealing light on the crucial issue on this aspect of the case-Wagner's motives in discharging Woodliff-I deem it significant that this testimony was not specifically denied by either Wagner or Max- well, and that no effort was made at any time in this proceeding to explain it in any way. I recognize that Crowley's testimony regarding Wagner's remark is inconsistent with the implications flowing from Wagner's and Maxwell's repeated denials that they had any knowledge of any union interest on Woodliff's part prior to his discharge. However, Wagner's testimony on cross-examination on the subject of his knowledge of the union activities among the employees and the participants therein was evasive and not altogether consistent. Wagner admitted that he had heard rumors for some time that Newell Fletcher was soliciting for the Union. Plant Manager Olsen placed it at sometime in January 1962, that the supervisors informed him that a union organizing drive was in progress. Admittedly, Olsen had heard that Fletcher was calling on employees in their homes with Union Representative Taylor Although, as Wagner admitted, the names of employees interested in the Union were discussed among the supervisors in staff meetings, Wagner could not recall any of the names. On the other hand, Wagner testified that he was sure that Woodliff's name was not mentioned at any time. Wagner's testimony as a whole concerning his lack of knowledge of Woodliff's prounion sympathies does not carry conviction, particularly, when viewed in light of the circumstances, summarized below which establish that Wagner had an adequate opportunity to acquire information as to the identity of Woodliff and some of the others who were supporting the Union As found above, Woodliff used to stop by and talk to Volunteer Organizer Fletcher as he was parked mornings on one of the main access roads to the plant. Woodliff did this more frequently than the other employees. Woodl-iff talked in favor of the Union with various employees in the plant, including one who subsequently acted as an observer for the Company in one of the elections. Booneville is a small town and admittedly rumors get around. As Foreman Maxwell's testimony reveals, Tommie Crowley reported to him the visit of Union Representative Taylor to his home immediately after it occurred. These circumstances, coupled with Leon Crowley's testimony that Wagner had said that Woodliff would make a good hand but that he had "gotten mixed up with the wrong people," convince me that Wagner's denials of knowledge of Woodliff's prounion sympathies are not sincere. Other circumstances casting light on Wagner's motives in discharging Woodliff are the following. As found above, differences of opinion between Wagner and the calender crew as to the proper rheostat setting at which to run the calender were longstanding. Rogers, who had operated the warmup mill for 21/2 years, credibly testified that this had been a problem for "a good while" before July 1961, when the delegation protested to Plant Manager Olsen about the speed at which Wagner in- sisted that the calender be run. Rogers, after being taken off the job of warmup operator, continued to serve as a relief man on the warmup mill. He continued to have difficulty running the calender at the speed directed by Wagner. In fact, it 14 It is to be noted, as found above, that Foreman Young in conversations with Marvin Tuckness had repeatedly referred to those who were "working or voting for the Union" as being wrong. 708-006-64-vol 141--33 500 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD was Rogers who relieved Woodliff when he was called to the office on February 12, the day of Woodliff's discharge. According to Rogers, he found the rheostat on the calender set at-39 when he took over from Woodliff on this occasion . Rogers testified that this was "plenty fast" for running a thick comb of the type then being run. Rogers continued to run the calender at this rheostat seting after he took over.15 In view of the fact that Woodliff had only been on the warmup mill job for 41/2 months, it is not surprising that he had difficulty running it fast enough to suit Wagner. Under all the circumstances , Wagner's taking the drastic action of discharge in response to Woodliff's protests that he could not run the calender any faster appears to me to be so out of proportion to the situation calling for redress that I conclude that Wagner must have had other motives in discharging Woodliff. That Wagner had an ulterior motive in discharging Woodliff is also suggested by the fact that normally the Company was agreeable in arranging transfers for the employees' convenience . Before the Union was on the scene it had transferred Woodliff to the day shift at his request. Rogers had requested that he be transferred away from the warmup mill, suggesting that there might be some problem regarding his health . The Company complied and transferred him to other operations. J. D. Young , who succeeded Woodliff on the warmup mill, found that a skin rash developed when he stripped blanks and rolled lead. The Company relieved him of these duties and assigned him instead to odd jobs such as sorting combs, breaking down boxes, or sweeping the floor. However, when after the advent of the Union Woodliff had difficulty running the warmup mill to suit Wagner, Wagner made no effort to transfer Woodliff to other operations which he could do, although Woodliff had satisfactorily performed various other jobs in the comb plant. Instead, even though Wagner himself had previously suggested transferring Woodliff if he could not do the job , Wagner chose to treat Woodliff 's remarks about not wanting to be driven beyond his capacity in the job as evidence of an uncooperative attitude warranting a discharge Upon all of the facts of the case , I conclude that Wagner's real reason for discharg- ing Woodliff was to eliminate a potential union organizer from the plant . It is to be noted that Wagner did not seriously criticize Woodhff's performance as warmup mill operator until after he joined the union movement . Although in the past the Company had accommodated employees by transferring them from one operation to another because of personal problems on the job, Woodliff was not accorded this kind of treatment. Wagner's knowledge of Woodliff 's prounion sympathies is con- firmed by his remark to Leon Crowley the next day that Woodliff would have made a good hand but he "got mixed up with the wrong people." I conclude that but for Wagner 's knowledge of Woodliff's prounion sympathies he would not have taken such offense at Woodliff's remarks at the final interview. As indicated above, I believe and find that Wagner seized upon Woodliff's remarks at the final interview as a pretext for ridding himself in the early stages of the union drive of an employee whom he believed would push the union movement in the plant Such a discharge , in my opinion , violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. While I have found that the Company 's discharge of Woodliff at the time violated Section 8 ( a) (3) of the Act, this does not mean that the Company is henceforth pre- cluded from taking action affecting Woodliff's job as warmup operator. If the Company subsequently should become dissatisfied with Woodliff's performance on the job , it may at any time take whatever action it sees fit , including transferring him to other work or discharging him, provided , however, that antiunion considera- tions do not enter into the decision to take such action. 2. Acts of interference , restraint, and coercion in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act The Company concedes that the conduct of Foreman Bill Young in February 1962 in attributing Woodliff's discharge to his association with Volunteer Organizer Fletcher exceeded the bounds of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act The Company also recognizes that Young further violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by his subsequent conduct in 15 Wagner testified that he found the rheostat set at 28 on the morning in question. Woodliff testified that he had the rheostat set at 35 on this occasion It is unnecessary for me to determine the precise rheostat setting on this occasion The important thing is that when Rogers, who was an experienced warmup operator , took over from Woodliff, he found it necessary to run the calender at a speed substantially slower than that de- manded by Wagner. ACE COMB COMPANY & ACE BOWLING COMPANY, ETC. 501 the period between the two elections in requesting employee Tuckness to solicit other employees to vote against the Union and stating to Tuckness and other employees that "pressure" would be put upon employees favoring the Union and that they would be "fired." The Company points out in mitigation of its offense that it was unaware of Fore- man Young's conduct and that it was contrary to instructions given the supervisors by Plant Manager Olsen and Attorney Swift to refrain from coercive conduct. The Company further urges that none of Foreman Young's threats were carried out. However, the Company acknowledges that none of these matters constitute a bar to an unfair labor practice finding based on Foreman Young's conduct. The Company strongly urges that I reject Leon Crowley's testimony concerning Foreman Maxwell's questioning him as to how he had voted in the first election, sug- gesting to Crowley that he ought to talk to Dale Taylor about changing his mind about the Union, and warning Crowley that union supporters might subsequently ex- perience difficulty in obtaining credit. However, as indicated above, I have ruled against the Company on this score. Under all the circumstances of this case, I find that Foreman Maxwell's questioning of Crowley about his union sympathies, Max- well's request to Crowley to solicit Taylor to change his union views, and Maxwell's veiled threat of reprisal against Taylor because of his union sympathies constituted interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.16 IV. THE REMEDY My Recommended Order will contain the conventional provisions entered in cases of this kind involving a discriminatory discharge in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act: Cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found and from in any other manner infringing upon the statutory rights of its employees; reinstate Woodliff and reimburse him for loss of pay suffered as a result of his discharge in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, 291-293, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co. 138 NLRB 716; and post appropriate notices. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By discharging George Woodliff on February 12, 1962, Respondents have dis- criminated in regard to his hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging membership in United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, in violation of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act. 2. By threatening employees with discharge and other reprisals because of their union activities, by coercively questioning employees concerning union matters, and by soliciting employees to secure union repudiations, the Respondents have interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby recommend that the Respondents, Ace Comb Company and Ace Bowling Company, Division of Amerace Corporation, their offi- cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization of their employ- ees, by discharging or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (b) Threatening employees with discharge or other reprisals because of their union activities, coercively questioning employees concerning union matters, and soliciting employees to secure union repudiations. (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the poli- cies of the Act: le Also violative of Section 8(a) (1) under the circumstances of this case was Foreman Maxwell's relaying on to Crowley Supervisor Wagner's comment about Woodliff's being discharged because of his association with "the wrong people." 502 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (a) Offer to George Woodliff immediate and full reinstatement to his former or a substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered by him, in the man- ner set forth above in the section entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the Board and its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time- cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records containing information concerning Respondents' backpay obligation under this Recommended Order. (c) Post at their plants at Booneville , Arkansas, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 14 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Direc- tor for the Twenty-sixth Region, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized rep- resentative of Respondents , be posted by Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them 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 by Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty -sixth Region , in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what steps they have taken to comply herewith.18 17 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." 19 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 Respondents have taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX 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 Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that- WE WILL NOT discharge or take any other discriminatory action against any employee because he is a member of or supports United Rubber, Cork , Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor union. WE WILL NOT threaten employees with discharge or other reprisals because of their union activities, coercively question employees concerning union matters, or solicit employees to secure withdrawals from the Union. WE WILL reinstate George Woodliff to the position of warmup operator, or to a substantially equivalent position, and will pay him the backpay he has lost as a result of being discharged on February 12, 1962. All our employees have the right to form, join, or assist any labor union or not to do so. WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of these rights. ACE COMB COMPANY AND ACE BOWLING COMPANY, DIVISION OF AMERACE CORPORATION, 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, 714 Falls Building, 22 North Front Street, Memphis, Tennessee , Telephone No. Jackson 7-5451 , if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.