Wonder State Manufacturing Co.

WONDER STATE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1217 Wonder State Manufacturing Company and International Asso- ciation of Machinists, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 36-CA-1307 and 36-CA-1363. April 11, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On January 9, 1963, Trial Examiner Leo F. Lightner 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 Respondent had not engaged in certain unfair labor practices violative of the Act. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respondent filed exceptions and supporting briefs. 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 Inter- mediate Report and the entire record in the case, including the excep- tions and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions ,' and rec- ommendations 2 of the Trial Examiner. ORDER The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner.3 1 We agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent discharged employee Straub in order to make a plausible argument for discharging employee Felty , and that, for the reasons set forth in the Intermediate Report , the discharges of these employees were viola- tive of Section 8(a) (3) and ( 1) of the Act. However, in adopting the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the work assignments and activities of Felty could not be disassociated from those of Straub , we refer only to the last shipment for which these employees were assertedly at fault and which they alone loaded and checked , i.e, the shipment to Hill Gin and Seed Company. 2 Member Rodgers, for the reasons expressed in his dissent in Isis Plumbing cE Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716, would not award interest on backpay. 8 The notice appended to the Intermediate Report is hereby amended by inserting immedi- ately below the signature line the following sentence: NOTE -We will notify any of the above-named employees presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their rights to full reinstatement upon applica- tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding was heard before Trial Examiner Leo F . Lightner in Paragould, Arkansas, on October 23 and 24, 1962, on the consolidated complaint of the Gen- 141 NLRB No. I11. 1218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD eral Counsel and the answer of Wonder State Manufacturing Company, hereinafter referred to as the Respondent.' The issues litigated were whether the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices and thereby violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended (61 Stat. 136, 73 Stat. 519, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et seq.), herein called the Act. General Counsel presented oral argument and a brief was filed by the Respondent; each has been care- fully considered. Motions, including dismissal, upon which decision was reserved are disposed of in accordance with my findings herein. Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent is an Arkansas corporation, having its principal office and place of business at Paragould, Arkansas, where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of cotton gin equipment and supplies. During the 12-month period preceding July 13, 1962, Respondent manufactured, sold, and shipped from its plant in Para- gould, Arkansas, finished products valued in excess of $50,000 to points located outside the State of Arkansas. The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The issues The principal issues raised by the pleadings and litigated at the hearing are whether the Respondent: (1) interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees by (a) interrogation of employees by Shatley and Schaaf on dates specified in the complaint, (b) by threats enunciated to employees by Shatley, Schaaf, and Gatz on dates specified in the complaint, (c) by a threat by Shatley, to employees, that the Respondent would close its plant in the event the Union were successful, (d) by Shatley, on June 19, 1962, implying that Respondent was keeping meeting places and activities of the Union under surveillance, or (e) by Shatley ordering employees not to reveal the interrogations referred to; or (2) discharged Jerry Max Felty and David Straub on June 20, 1962, and thereafter refused to reinstate them, to their former or substantially equivalent positions, because they joined or assisted the Union or engaged in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar- gaining or other mutual aid or protection.2 Respondent specifically denied that it had engaged in any of the alleged unfair labor practices. B. Supervisory personnel William L. Gatz is chairman of the board of directors of Respondent? Louis Schaaf is warehouse manager and a foreman. Earmon Clifton Shatley is foreman of the machine shop. It is undisputed, and I find, that these individuals are super- visors within the meaning of Section 2 (11) of the Act. C. Background Gatz described the origin of Respondent, in 1950, under his direction, as a service unit for various installations operated by the parent Bertig Company. These installations were described as 26 cotton gins and 19 grain elevators Gatz related i A charge was filed June 21, 1962, and a complaint issued in Case No. 26 -CA-1307 on August 3, 1962 A charge was filed in Case No. 26-CA-1362 on August 24, 1962, and a consolidated complaint issued on September 26, 1962 2 In addition the consolidated complaint alleged as an unfair labor practice the discharge of Phildon A Mitchell on August 20, 1962 Mitchell failed to appear at the hearing On motion of the General Counsel the alleged unfair labor practice related to the discharge of Mitchell was withdrawn, with prejudice. Gatz is president of the Bertig Company, also referred to as Bertig Gin, the parent company Gatz was president of Respondent until the demise of his father some 21/, years ago. Prior to his demise Gatz, Senior , had been president of Bertig. WONDER STATE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1219 there was a business potential for service of some 600 cotton gins and 30 to 40 grain elevators within a radius of 75 miles of Paragould, all of whom previously were required to go to Memphis to get service. Respondent developed "proprietary items" which were sold competitively and were thereafter serviced by Respondent. Initially Respondent's repair work was accomplished by a small cadre of five re- pairmen under the direction of Gatz. It appears that in June 1962 the production and maintenance unit consisted of approximately 45 employees, with 10 to 13 additional sales and office personnel. D. The events of June and July 1962 The bulk of the events which underlie the allegations of the complaint transpired in the 3-day period of June 18 to 20, 1962. Accordingly, the events herein are set forth in chronological order. 1. Union meeting-June 18 Jerry Max Felty, alleged discriminatee, was employed in the shipping and receiving department from May 1961 until June 20, 1962. On June 11 or 12, 1962, Felty, with knowledge that the Union was attempting to organize a local shoe factory, attended a union meeting at the Paragould Motel. Upon his inquiry of, and advice from, Lee Overstreet, a union representative, relative to what he could do to get a union started at Respondent's plant, Felty undertook the holding of a meeting at his home on Mon- day night, June 18. The meeting was attended by 13 employees of Respondent, including Felty. Overstreet and International Representative Harvey Christian at- tended as representatives of the Union. David Straub, the other alleged discriminatee herein, was among the employees who attended this meeting. After the meeting those attending went out to get union application cards signed by others who did not attend the meeting. Felty credibly testified that David Straub accompanied him to see two employees for this purpose. 2. Events of June 19 The following morning, Tuesday, June 19, Felty was working in the yard when his foreman, Louis Schaaf, advised him he wanted Felty to do some work in Schaaf's office. This was about 8 a.m 4 When they arrived in Schaaf's office he advised Felty to sit down and then conducted an interrogation. Schaaf asked Felty what kind of a meeting he had at his house "last night." Felty responded that they had a "union meeting." Schaaf inquired as to who was there and Felty refused to tell him. Schaaf inquired, "Who started this meeting. Who started this union business?" Felty responded, "I did, along with some other boys " Schaaf said, "I guess you know when we get a union in here the Company will go to nothing." Felty responded, "Well, if they cannot pay enough for people to live on, it might as well go to nothing." Schaaf then stated, "I guess you know that you are playing with fire getting this busi- ness started like this, don't you." Felty responded, "Well, I might be." This testimony stands undisputed.5 Bernard Joseph Specking has been employed by Respondent as a welder in the machine shop for 31/2 years. His foreman is Earmon Clifton Shatley. Specking first learned of the Union's effort to organize Respondent's employees from Felty about the middle of June. It may be inferred that Specking, who is shop steward for the Union at Respondent's plant, was among those who attended the meeting at Felty's house on Monday, June 18. Specking credibly testified that on Tuesday, June 19, Shatley called together the machine shop employees, and some of the employees who worked under Foreman Schaaf, near the timeclock. Shatley advised the employees that he heard that they wanted a union, that he was not going to fire them for trying to get a union, "but before we went too far, we should know one thing. He said that before Mr. Gatz died, he said that he would close the shop down before he would let it go union, and that anything that Mr. Gatz said before he died, was carried out afterwards." 6 Charles C. Collins has been employed by Respondent approximately 16 months. At the time he testified, and for 3 or 4 weeks prior thereto, Collins was a group leader in the machine shop. Collins corroborated the testimony of Specking relative to the speech of Shatley and set the time of the speech as right after the whistle blew 4 The undisputed testimony of Collins, infra, was the work commenced at 7 a m. B Foreman Louis Schaaff did not appear as a witness U It is clear from the record that Shatley referred to William L Gatz, Sr , whose demise occurred approximately 21h years prior to the time related 708-006-64-vol. 141-78 1220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD at 7 o'clock. Collins summarized Shatley's speech as being that Gatz said something to the effect that he would close the shop if the Union ever came in. Lowell Mangrum has been employed as a painter by Respondent since August 1961. His foreman is Shatley. He first learned of the Union's organizational efforts from Felty about the middle of June. Mangrum corroborated the testimony of Specking and Collins relative to Shatley's speech.? Mangrum summarized Shatley's speech as "He told us that we could do whatever we wanted, but that if we got a union in there, we would close the shop, except maybe just for Bertig Gin. He said that we would probably lose the Colson contract and other contracts if we got a union." Shatley has been employed by Respondent for 3 years and has been foreman of the machine shop for 2 years. Shatley acknowledged that in June he called a meet- ing of the employees to discuss the union organizational drive. Shatley related that "a fellow" (unidentified) came to him on Tuesday morning and advised him that he had heard that there was a union meeting "last night," advised him of the place of the meeting, and told him how many were there, and therefore Shatley called a meeting. Shatley acknowledged that the only individuals he advised as to what he had been told by this individual were Dohogne, vice president, Foreman Louis Schaaf, and Cameron, otherwise unidentified. Shatley did not testify relative to the substance of his speech. Shatley acknowledged that his advice to Dohogne and Schaaf, relative to what he had learned, was "later on in the day," June 19. On Tuesday, June 19, about an hour after his speech, Shatley approached Specking at the latter's work station. Specking's credible version of this interrogation was: Shatley stated that he heard there was a union meeting "last night" and Specking responded "I suppose there was." Shatley then stated, "You should know. You were there, weren't you?" Specking responded, "You should know you seem to know all about it." Shatley then stated, "Yes, there were 13 men there." Shatley acknowledged talking to Specking about the Union, advising Specking that he had heard there was a union meeting the prior night, and advising Specking, "If you had let me in on it, I might have went along." Shatley acknowledged that he had stated to Specking that he had heard that there were 13 employees at the meeting. To the extent the testi- mony of Specking is at variance with that of Shatley, I credit the former. On Tuesday, June 19, Shatley interrogated Mangrum.8 Mangrum related that Shatley advised him "I heard you had a union meeting last night." Mangrum re- sponded, "It seems like you know all about it." Mangrum related that Shatley then advised him that there were 12 or 13 people there and he knew all the names. Mangrum then acknowledged that they had had such a meeting. Mangrum was among those who had attended the meeting. Mangrum asserted that Shatley asked him why he wanted a union, and Mangrum responded that he thought that it would be better. Shatley acknowledged interrogating Mangrum, but placed the time as possibly a week later. Shatley admitted that he asked Mangrum why he wanted a union. To the extent the testimony of Mangrum is at variance with the testimony of Shatley, I credit the former. On the afternoon of June 19, at coffee break time, Felty went to the "coke" room to get a coke.9 Felty credibly testified that Tom Allison, an employee, stated that every- one was afraid to tell Gatz, chairman of the board of directors, about the Union. Foreman Shatley, who was present, approached Felty and inquired, "Why don't you go and tell him. You are the one who instigated all of this." Felty responded, "Well, when we get enough cards signed up to bring it to a vote, the union men will tell him, and I won't have to." Shatley then asserted that they might get a union in there but that Gatz would shut down the plant. Shatley said they would not do enough work to keep half the people on, that most of the employees would be laid off if they did get a union in. Shatley, who appeared as a witness, was not questioned relative to these statements attributed to him by Felty. I credit Felty. 3. Gatz' speech-June 20 On June 20, William L. Gatz 10 addressed Respondent's employees in the machine department. Gatz asserted that he sent word through Foreman Shatley and Foreman 7 While Mangrum stated the speech was made about 9.30 a.m., I consider the disparity in time unimportant. 8 Mangrum's testimony that he thought this conversation took place on Monday, June 18, is obviously erroneous 9 Felty first testified this event occurred in the morning of June 19, acknowledged that in an earlier statement to a Board agent he had asserted that the event occurred in the afternoon, then acknowledged that he was uncertain as to whether it was in the morning or afternoon I consider this variance in time unimportant Is See section III, B, supra. WONDER STATE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1221 Paul Exum that he wanted to talk to the whole organization (production and main- tenance) while they were on their coffee break. The time Gatz sent this message does not appear in the record. It is undisputed that Gatz addressed the employees commencing at approximately 10 o'clock and extending beyond the break period. Gatz described himself as a member of the Industrial Development Commission of Paragould. As background Gatz related that on Friday, June 8, an "industrial prospect" (a Michigan concern) delegation, consisting of the chairman of the board, president, secretary, treasurer, and operating vice president, visited Paragould to inspect Emerson Electric Manufacturing Company and Respondent's plant. The purpose of visiting Respondent's plant was to apprise its ability to build and con- tinue to furnish during operational periods augmental services in the line of engineer- ing, material handling devices, etc. During this tour, the president of the visiting concern recognized Foreman Shatley, a former employee who had returned to Arkansas. Gatz described prior efforts to secure new industries for Paragould as having been held in a clandestine manner, with "everything hush-hush and top secret." Gatz, as a member of the Industrial Development Commission, opposed this tactic, and described a feeling of unrest or criticism, among business people and the popu- lation, because they do not realize how hard it is to land industrial prospects. Gatz asserted his purpose in requesting the meeting 11 of Respondent's employees as affording him an opportunity to acquaint them with the identity of the people they saw go through the plant, to do some public relations work for the Industrial De- velopment Commission, and to explain the potential opportunity of a new industry in Paragould. Gatz in his speech made the following points: (1) He complimented the employees on the appearance of the plant, its neatness, etc.; (2) he called attention to the employees, as citizens of Paragould and residents of Greene County, to the fact that they are "vitally interested" in the growth of the community and the task of acquiring industry; (3) he related that in January 1962 his committee was advised that Paragould was I of 33 towns, in the States of Mississippi, Arkansas, and Ten- nessee, being considered by an industrial prospect. In February three members of the commission flew to Michigan to discuss the assets of Paragould. In January and March representatives of the prospect were in Paragould, having heard that Respondent had been helpful to other industries, in locating in the south, in supply- ing material handling devices and engineering assistance; (4) at the time of the visit on Friday, June 8, the commission was advised that the number of towns being con- sidered had been culled to three, one being Paragould. Gatz summarized the pros- pects as uncertain "but you can't hesitate to put your best foot forward"; (5) he then advised that the prospect's representatives were wined and dined by both the Governor of Mississippi and the Governor of Arkansas. Gatz related that the prospect's representatives had repeatedly told the commission that the only reason Paragould was being considered revolved around the fact that Arkansas had a right- to-work law, that Paragould, as such, had a non-union history of which they were aware, and this history shows that in 1938 when Ely-Walker went to Paragould, they were unionized. Two years later they voted the union out and have not had a union since. Ed White Shoe Factory was unionized 6 months after it arrived in 1948, but the union was never strong enough to even be recognized and they have never had any union since. Emerson Electric moved here in 1956, they have had two attempts at unionization, and now recently, as you know, they have voted the union in at a margin of eight votes. These visiting industrialists do not consider that a strong union movement, but it is something that they are watching with great care because they want to move only the one union plant, of the six plants that they operate in Michigan, into an area where they have a possibility of it not being union, and they laid the cards on the line and told us pointblank that their decision to move to Arkansas would rest upon the following factors: (a) that Governor Faubus would preserve the, right-to-work features of the Arkansas statute and that McMath (his primary opponent) would not. Consequently, if Faubus was successful in his current campaign that Arkansas would be in the running, otherwise not, (b) they were watching the outcome of the Emerson controversy with the Union 12 because they 11 Gatz' assertion that a demonstration of a new product of Respondent was scheduled about 10:30 a.m., June 20, is of no importance. 12 There was a strike at Emerson Electric, relative to negotiating a union contract, at the time of the speech. 1222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD though that was an opportunity to see whether the right -to-work law had anything in meaning, or whether the community of Paragould was union minded enough to back the union , or not union minded enough to back the Company, and, (c ) the current stock market crashes and the union situtation that has tied up Ford Motor Company, a major customer of that industry Gatz then called attention to the fact that some of the Respondent's employees had (in 1956 ) agreed to donate $50 each to help build a plant which was later occupied by Emerson Electric, which funds upon repayment would be used as a rotating fund to allow for the building of new plants for other industries . Gatz asserted , "I doubt very seriously if any of the people in our organization that donated toward that fund have ever worked for Emerson Electric since they have been here in 1956 to 1962, but they realized that this community is a teamwork proposition . We have to stand together, or fall together." Felty credibly testified that in this speech Gatz also asserted that Respondent "made a lot of stuff for Emerson , and some of you boys know what it is to have a layoff, some of you are still here from the last big layoff we had, and it looks like we will have another one." 13 Straub corroborated the testimony of Felty that reference was made by Gatz to a layoff in 1958. 4. Discharges of Felty and Straub on June 20 Felty and Straub were both employed as helpers in the shipping department Straub was initially employed in the early part of February 1962. When Gatz finished his speech, on June 20, Felty, Straub, Jerry Weaver, and Nel- son McHaynie, all shipping department employees, went out to the yard and were placing angle irons in racks when Foreman Schaaf came out and advised Felty and Straub to come into the warehouse . They were then handed termination slips by Schaaf. Felty fixed the time as approximately 11: 15 a.m. The separation notice specified the reason for separation as "continued mishandling of shipments after repeated warnings , resulting in numerous shortages and customer complaints." 5. Events subsequent to June 20 Specking credibly testified that on June 29, in the new warehouse , he and Collins and Pete Maberry were discussing the Union in general when Foreman Shatley walked up and said, "How do you feel about the union ." Specking responded, "I am not for it and am I not against it. I am just neutral . When I decide I will let you know the first one." 14 Collins credibly testified that about 2 weeks after Shatley addressed the employees on June 19, Shatley came to Collins in the machine shop and asked him what he thought of the Union . Collins responded, "If it is a good union , it is all right, and if it ain't no good union, it ain't no good." 15 6. Respondent's defense-related evidence Respondent contends that the discharges were for cause , that Felty and Straub repeatedly performed their duties in a negligent manner. In essence , Respondent contends that commencing February or March 1962 , until June 20, 1962, some of Respondent's shipments to customers were incomplete , that on each occasion Felty and Straub were reprimanded verbally and written reprimands were placed in their personnel files. Foreman Schaaf, who presumably issued such reprimands and pur- ported prepared the ostensible reprimand slips, did not appear as a witness . Accord- ingly, the circumstances surrounding alleged shortages in deliveries , the responsibility therefor, and ensuing reprimands , if any, insofar as this record is concerned, is largely a matter of evaluation of the testimony of President Begley and the dis- chargees, Felty and Straub. Jack J. Begley has been president of Respondent for approximately 25 months. Begley asserted that he went to Birmingham on the afternoon of June 18 and returned home about midnight on Tuesday, June 19. His home is in Jonesboro, 20 miles from Paragould . Begley arrived at his office about 8:30 a.m. on June 20 13 Gatz' testimony preceded that of Felty ; Gatz was not recalled and Felty's elaboration stands undisputed. 14 Shatley, who appeared as a witness prior to the testimony of Specking, did not allude to this event. He was not recalled as a witness 1s Shatley did not testify relative to this interrogation WONDER STATE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1223 and found a memo from Dohogne, vice president, about customer complaints.16 The memo enumerates a number of customer complaints relative to shortages en- countered in shipments. The memo recites an alleged telephoned complaint on June 19 to Dohogne from Hill Gin and Seed Company at Cotton Plant, Arkansas, a shortage of one panel in the erection of a house. Other shortages enumerated, with time of delivery unspecified, are: (a) Decatur Cotton Oil Mill, a three-hopper house, short a door latch; (b) Matthews, Georgia, short some straps which are bracing rods in the ARMCO portion of a building; (c) Vance Cupp received one incorrect beam; (d) Bono Gin Company, failed to ship chains for the hopper doors; (e) Service Coop Gin, shipped twice the necessary number of nuts and not nearly enough bolts; (f) Abbey Gin Company, a beam had to be cut and flown down "dur- ing the last year Gin season"; (g) Casa Grande, the bands were pulled too tightly on the hopper panels causing them to be sprung. The memo recommended that those who made these shipments should be fired. The memo notes that some 40 seed houses were shipped "this year," providing sufficient experience to make at least one perfect shipment. Begley related that he was concerned because of the importance of the particular product which Respondent had spent time, money, and effort developing. Begley conferred with Dohogne and Ferguson, vice president of manufacturing and engineering, on June 20. They discussed the shipping problems, and also a new product, which occasioned Begley's trip to Birmingham. These discussions terminated about 9.30 a.m. Begley then called Louis Schaaf, warehouse manager and foreman, to ascertain who was responsible for the particular shipment to Hill Gin and Seed Company. Begley asserted that Schaaf informed him that Felty and Straub had packaged this particular shipment Begley related that he had occasion "to talk to them (Felty and Straub) about the importance of shipping once before," apparently in February 1962. Begley then asserted, "So, I asked to see their records that we keep of employees, if they had been reprimanded or if they had earned some praise Mr. Schaaf brought the records to me, and I noticed that there had been quite a few instances in the past where-Mr. Schaaf had actually ascertained that they Welty and Straub) had been negligent." These facts were reflected by some reprimand slips that were in their personnel file.17 Begley asserted that upon receipt of the information contained in the reprimand slips he instructed Schaaf to discharge Felty and Straub "for continued negligence in shipping ." Begley placed the time of his instruction to Schaaf, at the end of their conference, as being approximately 9:45 a.m. Begley acknowledged that, during his conference with Dohogne and Ferguson, Dohogne mentioned "that we apparently had some union activity." Begley then asserted that Dohogne did not elaborate and that he (Begley) did not know any detail relative to union activity until after he had talked to Schaaf However, Begley admitted that Dohogne told him, at this conference, that Do- hogne had heard that some of the employees had held a meeting on Monday evening, "in regard to organizing a union." Begley was self-contradictory as- serting that it was not until after he had completed his conversation with Schaaf, and called in Foreman Shatley, about 9:45 a.m., that he learned there had been a union meeting on Monday evening, June 18, while he was out of the city. Begley acknowledged having a pretrial conference with General Counsel's rep- resentative (Wise) and providing a written statement . Begley did not recall stating anything about written warnings or reprimands at that time. Neither did Begley recall talking to Wise about written warnings or reprimands. However, Begley did recall advising Wise about a time in February 1962 when Felty and Straub were engaged in work which did not meet his standards of satisfaction. Begley 10 Begley testified, "Mr. Dohogne dictated this memo, and it was typed up the first thing in the morning (of June 20) before I came to the office" Dohogne did not appear as a witness How or why Begley ascertained the precise time of the preparation of this memo is unexplained 17 There are four forms headed "employee warning notice" bearing the name of Felty, and the same number, covering identical items, bearing the name of Straub All are ostensibly signed by Foreman Schaaf, who did not testify Begley acknowledged that an employee is "not necessarily" informed when a written record of a reprimand is made, asserting "he was orally informed " The warning notices are dated March 30, April 30, and May 10 and 28, 1962, and relate respectively to shipments (a) to Decatur, a shortage of a door latch and house brace straps, (b) a shipment to Bono Gin, no chain for seed hopper doors, (c) a shipment to Matthews, Georgia, short straps and brace rods, and (d) a shipment to Oneida Gin, a shortage of two H panel, On each form the violation is described as "carelessness." 1224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD asserted that he mentioned there were "several instances " of dissatisfaction, but he did not enumerate them because he could not remember the particulars , except rela- tive to the instance in February . On the basis of demeanor, and for other reasons explicated infra, I do not find Begley a credible witness to the extent to which his testimony relates either to the circumstances surrounding the discharges or to his knowledge of the union activity of Felty at that time. Felty did not recall working on a shipment that went to Abbey Gin Company in 1961. Felty did recall working on a product sent to Decatur Cotton Oil Meal. Felty explained that this order was loaded on a day when it was raining and cold (it was obviously shipped prior to March 30, 1962) and quoted Schaaf as saying that as bad as the weather was to load the truck as fast as they could, get it all loaded as well as they could, "and what we missed would have to be sent later." Felty acknowledged that Schaaf later advised him that there were some parts short and that they would have to "double check" shipments. Felty acknowledged that there was a shipment to Bono Gin sometime in late April or early May. He denied that Schaaf reprimanded him in regard to this shipment. Felty related that Schaaf inquired as to who fixed up the bolts and chains to go on that order and Felty advised who (unidentified ) had prepared a box of bolts and chains to go on the truck . Felty explained that there were four em- ployees working and each had different areas of responsibility in preparing packages which were to accompany the total shipment. Felty acknowledged that about the middle of May 1962 Schaaf talked to him about the Matthews , Georgia, shipment which was short straps and braces rods. Felty related that Schaaf inquired as to who checked the braces and paneling for the house. The panels were banded and packaged and there was no way of determining how many were in the package. The other shippers had to take the word of the individual who packaged the particular items. Felty acknowl- edged that the four or five shipping employees at that time were advised collec- tive to be more careful. Felty acknowledged being told by Schaaf of a shipment to Service Co-Op Gin, in March 1962, where all nuts and no bolts were sent with six or eight seed houses. Felty explained that two other men who had been secured from the employment office had packaged the nuts, that Felty and Straub were working in the yard at other work when the list of bolts and nuts were made up. He de- scribed Schaaf as joking about the incident and advising him to fix up some bolts and send them "and that was all that was said about it." Felty asserted that Schaaf did not tell him at that time to be careful. Felty acknowledged learning from Schaaf of a shortage of two "H" panels about May 28, 1962 . Felty described the circumstances under which someone else prepared the panels in a package, and described the inability of the shippers to determine what was in the package once it was banded. Felty specifically dis- claimed any responsibility for this shortage. Felty acknowledged that when there was a shortage they would come to him first to find out who shipped the particular item and who checked it. Felty denied that he was the oldest employee in the group doing the work and identified Tom Allison as the oldest employee. Felty asserted that he was advised of the shortage in the Hill Gin and Seed Company shipment on Monday, June 18, by Schaaf.18 Felty explained that he and Straub were not responsible for the error in the shipment because the panels were labeled wrong by the paint department. Felty asserted "when Louis told us about it on Monday, he came out to see how come they were wrong, he went out where they were stacked up, and we found that they were labeled wrong, and he went and got Mr. Shatley and showed them to him " Felty then described Shatley and Schaaf coming out and checking it again and Schaaf advising Felty not to move the panels until they got everything cleared up. Felty and Straub were then advised to "re-label" the panels and put them in the piles where they were supposed to be. Felty quoted Schaaf as advising him and Straub "that it was not our fault, that it was the paint department 's fault and it was all cleared up and not our fault." 19 Felty credibly testified that the only deficiency in shipment attributable to him was a shipment of two braces too many on a shipment in April or May 1962. Felty Is This testimony stands in contrast to the alleged memo from Dohogne to Begley, in which Dohogne alleges that he learned of this shortage as the result of a telephone call from the customer on June 19 Dohogne did not appear as a witness. 19 Begley, who testified thereafter , did not dispute this testimony Schaaf did not appear as a witness. WONDER SPATE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1225 acknowledged that when the shipping department was through loading everyone who had worked on the shipment was supposed to sign the shipment order. Felty denied ever being told by Schaaf that he was responsible for a shortage in the shipments to Oneida Gin Company. CenTennial Cotton Gin Company ( otherwise referred to as Matthews, Georgia), or to Hill Gin and Seed Company. Straub was unable to recall Schaaf ever having talked to him specifically about shipments, or shortages, to Decatur, Bono Gin, Matthews, Georgia, or Oneida Gin. Straub acknowledged that Schaaf told him to be careful to see that all items necessary were shipped in a total shipment. Straub explained that when he and Felty were not working on a shipment, they would prepare parts for shipment , clean up or straighten up the warehouse, put parts away, and sometimes fix up a box of bolts, nuts, etc., for a double or a single installation . He described "straps" as coming in a cardboard box a foot deep, 18 inches to 2 feet across, and some as much as 14 feet long, with 50 or 60 pieces in each box. Sometimes these boxes were received , inferentially from some other unidentified company, and found upon examination to be short bracing rods or straps, which would then be filled in from stock. Straub recalled one com- plaint, unidentified, where two panels for a house were allegedly short. He related that Ed Saunder made a special trip to take the parts to the Gin and when he arrived they had found the alleged missing parts, which they themselves had misplaced. Straub corroborated the testimony of Felty that they were advised of a shortage on the Hill Gin shipment on Monday, June 18, and asserted that this error was not their fault Straub specifically denied having packaged the hoppers (panels) which were shipped to Hill Gin and corroborated Felty's testimony that once these hoppers were banded together there was no means of ascertaining the precise number of panels contained therein. E. Concluding findings 1. Interference , restraint, and coercion a. Interrogations and threats I have found , supra, that Felty was the prime mover in the effort to organize Re- spondent's employees . At his instigation , a meeting was held at Felty's house on Monday, June 18, with 13 of Respondent 's employees, and union representatives, in attendance . The following morning, June 19, Foreman Shatley addressed the em- ployees and advised them that Gatz , before he died, said that he would close the shop down before he would let it go union , and that anything that Mr. Gatz said before he died was carried out afterward . General Counsel contends that this threat to close the plant, in the event the Union was successful , was in derogation of the pro- visions of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. I have found , supra, that at 8 a in., on June 19, Foreman Schaaf interrogated Felty relative to the meeting he held at his house, the nature of it, who started the union business , and thereupon advised Felty, "I guess you know when we get a union in here the Company will go to nothing," and "I guess you know that you are playing with fire getting this business started like this don't you? " General Counsel contends that both the interrogation and the threat of discharge or other reprisal were violations of the provisions of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. I have found , supra, that Foreman Shatley interrogated Specking and Mangrum, on Tuesday, June 19, relative to their attitude toward the Union, their attendance at the meeting at Felty's house, the identity of others attending the meeting, etc. I have also found that Foreman Shatley interrogated Specking on June 29 by inquiring how he felt about the Union, and that Shatley interrogated Collins as to what he thought of the Union approximately 2 weeks after June 19. Respondent urges, in its brief, that the interrogations conducted by Shatley and Schaaf were not per se coercive, that they were not made at the "seat of managerial authority," and that they were isolated instances of expression, and that the state- ments made constituted protected free speech . I disagree. The Board has held that interrogation of employees is neither lawful nor unlawful per se. The test of illegality is whether, under all the circumstances , the interrogation reasonably tends to coerce , restrain , or interfere with the employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by the Act. In the Blue Flash 20 case the Board held that where the interrogation was demonstrated to be for a legitimate purpose, where the purpose was communicated to the employees , and where the employees were assured there would be no reprisal , such interrogation was not coercive and not unlawful. No contention is made by Respondent herein that the conditions outlined by the Board in the Blue Flash case were present here. 20 See Blue Flash Express , Inc, 109 NLRB 591. 1226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD There are numerous Board and court cases which hold that interrogation of em- ployees individually about union activities in a context of other conduct in derogation of the Act, such as a threat to close the plant if the Union organized it, is conduct violative of the provisions of Section 8(a)(1). See Orkin Exterminating Company of Kansas, Inc., 136 NLRB 630. I find accordingly. In numerous cases the Board and courts have held that an employer's direct or implied threat of reprisal to union adherents , including a threat of loss of employ- ment, the shutdown of a plant , or a reduction of work if the union were successful is violative of Section 8(a)(1). See Morris & Associates, Inc., 138 NLRB 1116 I find the statement of Shatley, to the assembled employees on June 19, and the state- ment of Schaaf to Felty, the same day, contained threats of retaliation and thus consti- tuted interference, restraint, and coercion in derogation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. b. Impression of surveillance General Counsel contends that the conduct of Foreman Shatley in advising em- ployees that he knew of the union meeting, that he knew how many employees at- tended, and that he could give the names of those who attended created an impression of surveillance. Respondent contends that Shatley made no representation as to the source of his information and therefore surveillance could not be reasonably implied, since his source of information could have been other than by surveillance. I have found, supra, that Shatley advised Mangrum that he knew the names of the people attending the union meeting. The statement is not one of advise, opinion, or argument, rather it is a statement of knowledge of facts. Numerous Board and court decisions have held that the creation of the impression of surveillance is coercive, and therefore is a violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. Where a foreman interrogated an employee concerning his attendance at a union meeting, and the foreman admitted that he knew of such attendance, the Board has found that such conduct implied surveillance and was violative of Section 8(a) (1). Star Cooler Corporation, 129 NLRB 1075. A supervisor's statement to an employee, who refused to disclose the names of em- ployees who attended a union meeting, that the supervisor knew their identity has been held to have fostered an impression of surveillance and to be violative of Section 8(a) (1). Texas Hotel, 131 NLRB 834 21 Accordingly, I find that Foreman Shatley's statement to Mangrum fostered the impression of surveillance and was violative of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. c. Gatz' speech General Counsel contends that the speech of Gatz, on June 20, contained threats of discharge or other reprisals if employees became or remained members of the Union or gave assistance to it, and that in the context of other acts of Respondent herein that said speech was violative of Section 8(a) (1). Respondent contends that the speech is protected by the provisions of Section 8(c) of the Act. Respondent asserts that Section 8(c) was designed to prevent the Board from using unrelated noncoercive expressions of opinion as evidence of a general course of unlawful activity, that noncoercive statements do not acquire a coercive character merely because an employer has committed unfair labor practices on other occasions, and that an employer may predict unfavorable consequences of unioniza- tion without violating the Act, so long as no threat is imparted 22 There can be no doubt that an employer may freely express his views, including antipathy toward unions, provided no threat of retaliation, promise of benefit, or other coercive statement is included. It is here alleged that Gatz' speech threatened the employees with discharge or other reprisals. I have found, supra, threats of the type alleged were enunciated by Shatley and Schaaf and that said threats were a violation of Section 8(a)(1). I have also found other acts of Respondent which constitute interference, restraint, and coercion. Assuming, without deciding, this speech of Gatz were violative of the Act, it at most would be cumulative and would not modify the Order recommended herein. Accordingly, I find it unnecessary to reach or resolve the question of whether portions of said speech were in fact proscribed by Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act 23 See also R L Ziegler, Inc, 129 NLRB 1211; Jamel, Inc, 129 NLRB 1191, Georgia- Pacific Co) poration, 132 NLRB 621 22 Citing N L R B v Pittsburgh S S. Company, 180 F. 2d 731 (C A 6) ; hfylan-Sparta Company, Inc, 78 NLRB 1144; NLRB. v J E. hfcCatron et at , d/b/a Puce Valley Lumber Co , et al. 216 F 2d 212 (CA 9) WONDER STATE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1227 d. Other allegations In addition to the interrogations by Shatley considered supra, the complaint alleges that Shatley interrogated employees concerning their union membership, etc., on June 20 and July 15, 1962. In addition it is alleged that Respondent, through Shatley, violated Section 8(a) (1) by ordering employees not to reveal the interrogations referred to in the complaint. I find no evidence to support these allegations and will recommend dismissal of them 2. The discharges of Felty and Straub General Counsel contends the discharges of Felty and Straub were discrimiiatorily motivated. Respondent contends the discharges were the result of the negligence and carelessness of these employees. It has been too frequently stated to require citation that it is not the function of the Board to determine whether under the circumstances a discharge was justified. The sole question is whether the discharge was for proscribed discriminatory reasons. The Board has found discharges to have been discriminatory in numerous cases. In part these findings were based upon evidence of interrogation, threats, and other manifestations of animus.23 The Supreme Court in Universal Camera Corp. v. N.L.R.B , 340 U S. 474, at 477, defines the "evidence" required by Section 10(e) of the Act as "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion Accordingly, it must do more than create a suspicion of the fact to be established . it must be enough to justify, if the trial were to a jury, a refusal to direct a verdict when the conclusions sought to be drawn from it is one of fact for the jury." The Board has found a discharge discriminatorily motivated by reason of the unconvincing character of the reasons adduced to support the discharge, including the timing of the discharge. Pacemaker Corporation, 120 NLRB 987, 991. See also United Fireworks Mfg Co, Inc., 118 NLRB 883, 885. The facts herein include: (1) The timing of the discharge, 2 days after the union meeting, with knowledge that Felty had held a meeting at his house; (2) 1 of the 2 individuals selected for discharge was the one who undertook the organization of Respondent's employees, by obtaining attendance of 13 employees at his home, including the other dischargee; (3) the timing of the discharge, immediately after an antiunion speech by Gatz, chairman of the board of directors of Respondent; 24 and (4) Begley acknowledged that he would not have fired Felty and Straub were it not for "reprimand" slips allegedly contained in their personnel folders. There is a significant absence of testimony as to when these "reprimand" slips were actually prepared, allegedly by Foremen Schaaf.25 Significantly, the testimony of Felty that he had never been reprimanded by Schaaf, except on one occasion, is not refuted. The testimony of Felty and Straub that shipments of nuts and bolts were by box containing as many as 1,500 items, that straps and similar items were in boxes containing as many as 60 items, the "hoppers" (panels) were strapped together in packages of 15 or more items, the completeness of which could not be determined once they were banded, and that they were not responsible for shortages attributed to them, stands undisputed. In my view these and other facts stated above constitute a prima facie case of discrimination, the burden of going forward and presenting refuting evidence was upon Respondent. See Antonio Santisteban & Co., Inc., 122 NLRB 44. Speaking for the court, Medina, chief judge, has said "the unexplained coincidence of time with respect to the principal events was really no coincidence at all, but rather part of a deliberate effort by the management to scotch the lawful measures of the employees before they had progressed too far toward fruition . . . . If em- ployees are discharged partly because of their participation in a campaign to establish a union and partly because of some neglect or delinquency, there is none- 23 See Sanford Dress Corporation, 123 NLRB 1106; Waynline Inc, 119 NLRB 1698 24 It is noted, without elaboration, that while Gatz testified that he advised Begley, president of Respondent, of his intent to address the employees on the morning of the speech, Begley, to the contrary, denied having seen or talked to Gatz prior to the latter's speech I find resolution of this conflict unnecessary However, Begley's studied attempt to disclaim knowledge of Felty's union activity prior to the discharges was unimpressive. 2s While these "reprimand" slips carry the dates of March 30, April 30, and May 16 and 28, it is noted that there is no variation in the color of the ink and they bear the appearance of having been prepared simultaneously Their evidentiary value, at best, Is questionable 1228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD theless a violation of the ... Act." N.L.R.B. v. Jamestown Sterling Corp., 211 F. 2d 725 (C.A. 2). While Begley sought to create the impression that he had a vague knowledge of the existence of an effort to organize Respondent's employees, the fact is that he had an hour's conference with Dohogne, who was fully advised by Shatley, the previous day, as to Shatley's knowledge about a meeting having been held at Felty's home on the night of the 18th, at which 13 of Respondent's employees, whose identities Shatley knew, were present. Begley also had at least a 15-minute conference, preceding his determination to discharge Felty, with Foreman Schaaf, the day following Schaaf's interrogation of Felty, during which Schaaf learned of the union meeting which was held at Felty's home, and during which Schaaf inquired if Felty was aware of the possible consequences of his activities. To hold under these circumstances, as Begley would have believed, that Begley was not advised prior to his decision to discharge Felty and Straub, of the union activities of Felty, and the attendance at Monday's meeting by Straub, would tax credulity. I find these assertions of Begley and in- ferences he seeks to have drawn therefrom implausible. The existence of some justifiable ground for discharge or layoff is no defense if it was not the "moving cause." Wells, Incorporated v. N.L R.B., 162 F. 2d 457, 460 (C.A. 9). In view of the above facts, and upon the entire record as a whole, I believe and hold that Respondent's purported reason for discharging Felty and Straub was a pretext, and that the real reason and "moving cause" was the known union and concerted activities of said employees and said discharges constituted discrimination with respect to their hire and tenure of employment to discourage membership in the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. In so finding I am not unmindful of the fact that the union activities of Straub were minimal. However, since Felty was the prime mover in the union movement, and from the evidence it appears undisputed that the work assignments and activities of Felty could not be disassociated from those of Straub, it appears, and, I find that the discharge of Straub was directly related to the desire of the employer to discontinue the employment of Felty. The credibility determinations herein are based upon: The demeanor of the witnesses; the plausibility or implausibility of the testimony of a particular witness in the light of the record as a whole, including apparent discrepancies, faulty mem- ories, and evident inaccuracies; the interest of a particular witness in the outcome of the case, or lack of such interest; and the failure of Respondent to rebut particular evidence without explanation. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec- tion with Respondent's operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and such of them as have been found to constitute unfair labor practices tend to lead to labor disputes obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Respondent having discharged Jerry Max Felty and David Straub because of their union activities, I recommend that Respondent offer to them immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their sensiority or other rights and privileges of employment, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination against them, by the payment of a sum of money equal to the amount they would normally have earned as wages from the date on which their employment was ter- minated by the Respondent to the date on which Respondent shall offer to them proper reinstatement as herein provided, less net earnings,26 to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. Interest on backpay shall be computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumb- ing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. It is also recommended that the Respondent be ordered to make available to the Board, upon request, payroll and other records to facilitate checking the amount of earnings due. In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices committed, the commission of similar and other unfair labor practices reasonably may be anticipated. I shall 20 See Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440, 490 WONDER STATE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1229 therefore recommend that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon rights guaranteed to its employees by Section 7 of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By engaging in the conduct set forth in the section entitled "Interference, re- straint, and coercion" to the extent therein found, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging 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 Jerry Max Felty and David Straub, thereby discouraging the free exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and discouraging membership in and activities for the above-named labor organization, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce 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, and upon the entire record of the case, I recommend that the Respondent, Wonder State Manufacturing Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall- 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in said International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging, laying off, or refusing to reinstate any of its employees because of their concerted or union activities, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their lure or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (b) Interrogating employees concerning union affiliation or activities in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. (c) Threatening employees with discharge, closing of the plant, reduction of em- ployment, or any other form of reprisal, if they engage in concerted or union activities. (d) Stating to employees that the Respondent knows the identity of those who attended a union meeting or otherwise creating the impression of surveillance (e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Jerry Max Felty and David Straub immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed. (b) Make whole Jerry Max Felty and David Straub for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimination against them in accordance with the recommendation set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy." (c) 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 to analyze the backpay due and the rights of employment under the terms of the Recommended Order herein. (d) Post at its place of business in Paragould, Arkansas, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 27 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional "'In the event this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A Deci- sion 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 a United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order." 1230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Director for the Twenty-sixth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecu- tive days thereafter, in conspicious places, including all places where notices to em- ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-sixth Region, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply with the foregoing Recommended Order. It is further recommended that unless within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the Respondent shall notify the said Regional Director, in writing, that it will comply with the foregoing Recommended Order,28 the National Labor Relations Board issue an Order requiring Respondent to take the aforesaid action. It is further recommended that the allegations of paragraph 7 of the complaint rela- tive to interrogations by Shatley on June 20 and July 15, 1962, and the allegations of paragraph 11 of the complaint be dismissed. as In the event 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 therewith " APPENDIX NOTICE OF 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, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activities on behalf of Inter- national Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discharging any of our employees, or in any other manner discriminating against our employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning their union membership or union activities in a manner constituting interference , restraint, or coercion in violation of Section 8 (a)( I) of the Act. WE WILL NOT threaten employees with discharge , closing of the plant, reduc- tion of employment, or other form of reprisal, if they engage in concerted or union activities. WE WILL NOT, by advice, to employees of knowledge of those attending union meetings, or otherwise , create the impression that union activities of the em- ployees are under surveillance. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with , restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right of self-organization , to form labor organi- zations, to join or assist the International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in any other concerted activities for the pur- pose of collective bargaining or mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any and all such activities. WE WILL offer to Jerry Max Felty and David Straub immediate and full rein- statement to their former or substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to seniority and other rights and privileges , and make them whole for any loss of salary or pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against them. WONDER STATE MANUFACTURING 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, 22 North Front Street, Memphis 3, Tennessee, Telephone No. Jackson 7-5451, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.