Western Aluminum Of Oregon Inc.

WESTERN ALUMINUM OF OREGON INCORPORATED, ETC. 1191 All our employees are free to become or remain members of Retail Clerks Union Local 1116, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, or of any other labor organization, or to refrain therefrom except to the extent such right may be affected by an agreement authorized by Section 8(a) (3) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, as amended. W. T. GRANT COMPANY, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employee, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of her right 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. 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, 316 Federal Building, 110 South Fourth Street, Minneapolis 1, Minnesota, Telephone No. 339- 0112, Extension 2601, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Western Aluminum of Oregon Incorporated, Western Aluminum Corporation (a California Corporation ), and Oregon Screen Corporation (an Oregon Corporation ) and General Teamsters Local No. 324, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Case No. 36- -CA-1227. October 25, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On June 25, 1963, Trial Examiner James R. Hemingway issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and rec- ommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. I-Ie also found that the Respondents had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended dis- missal of such allegations. Thereafter, the Respondents filed excep- tions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support thereof. 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, the Respondents' exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following addition. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondents violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by depriving employees of bene- fits in retaliation for their joining the Union, and Section 8(a) (3) by discharging Laurel Williams, one of their three employees, because of his union activities. The Trial Examiner further found that while 144 NLRB No. 112. 1192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Union, on January 2,1963, and at all times material thereafter, was the representative of these employees in an appropriate unit, the Respondents had not refused to bargain with the Union in violation of Section 8 (a) (5), as alleged in the complaint, because the Union had tmade no request for bargaining. On the ground, however, that the Respondents, by their unlawful conduct, had shown a disposition to evade any obligation to bargain with the Union, the Trial Exam- iner recommended that the Respondents be required to bargain with the Union upon request. The Respondents excepted generally to the findings that they had engaged in violations of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and to the recom- mended remedial order in its entirety, but took no specific exception to the recommended order to bargain. Thereafter, within the time allowed for exceptions, the Respondents also filed a motion requesting the Board to reject the Trial Examiner's recommendation that they be required to bargain with the Union upon request on the asserted ground that there had been a complete turnover of the employees in the unit subsequent to the hearing. We find no merit in this conten- tion. Where, as here, the Union has clearly established its majority status prior to the Respondents' unfair labor practices, and the Re- spondents have engaged in unfair labor practices aimed at destroying the Union's majority and disclosing <a disposition to evade their obli- gation to bargain, we would require the Respondents to bargain upon request whether or not the Union has lost its majority by a turnover. Indeed, under these circumstances, it must be presumed that, but for the Respondent's unfair labor practices, the Union would have re- tained its majority. Not to order the Respondents to bargain with the Union upon request would in effect enable the Respondents to, profit by their unfair labor practices.' The Respondents' motion is, therefore, hereby denied. ORDER The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial. Examiner.2 MEMBER JENKINS took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. I Cf. Greystone Knitwear Corp . and Donwood, Ltd, 136 NLRB 573, 575, and cases cited In footnote 4 thereof ; Medo Photo Supply Corporation v N.L.R.B., 321 U S 678, 687; Franks Bros. Company v. N L R B, 321 U S 702-705 2 The Recommended Order is hereby amended by substituting for the first paragraph therein , the following paragraph Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent , western Aluminum of Oregon Incorporated , Western Aluminum Cor- poration , and Oregon Screen Corporation , its officers, agents , successors , and assigns, shall : WESTERN ALUMINUM OF OREGON INCORPORATED, ETC. 1193 INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE On January 16, 1963, General Teamsters Local No. 324, International Brotherhood! of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein called the Union, filed a charge, and on February 21, 1963, an amended charge, upon which a complaint duly issued on March 1, 1963, which, as amended, alleged that Western Aluminum of Oregon Incorporated, Western Aluminum Corporation (a California corporation), and Oregon Screen Corporation (an Oregon corporation),' herein called Respondents, had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et seq, herein called the Act. The violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act was alleged to be the discharge of Laurel Williams, an employee, and the violation of Section 8(a)(5) was alleged to be a refusal to recognize and bargain with the Union. Specific al- legations were made of violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as hereinafter set forth. On March 14, 1963, the Respondents filed an answer denying the allegations of unfair labor practices as well as most other allegations of the complaint. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Salem, Oregon, on March 27, 1963, before Trial Examiner James R. Hemingway. At the beginning of the hearing, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, hereinafter called General Counsel, moved to amend the complaint with respect to the names of Respondents. The motion was granted. At the close of the General Counsel's case-in-chief, the Respondents made a number of motions to strike specific allegations of the complaint. The grounds stated in support of such motions indicated that Respondents intended such motions to be motions for dismissal for want of proof and were ruled upon accordingly. None of the motions was granted at the time. At the close of the hearing, the Respondents moved to dismiss the entire complaint for want of proof. Ruling was reserved thereon and is now ruled on in accordance with the following findings and conclusions. The parties waived oral argument but requested time in which to file briefs. Time was given therefor, and within such time the parties filed briefs. The Respondents also filed a request for findings of fact. The latter is ruled on as follows: Request No. I is granted only to the comma and the remaining clause is rejected as worded. Request No. II is denied. Request No. III is granted. Request No. IV is denied. Request No. V is denied. Request No. VI is denied as worded. Request No. VII is denied as worded FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENTS During the year 1962, Western Aluminum Corporation, an Oregon corporation, was in existence and was engaged at Salem, Oregon, in the manufacture and sale of aluminum roofing and siding. In the early part of 1963, Western Aluminum of Oregon Incorporated, and Oregon Screen Corporation, both Oregon corporations, took over the business of Western Aluminum Corporation, the Oregon corporation, and the latter, at the date of the hearing, was in the process of dissolution Western Aluminum Corporation, a California corporation, maintains an office and principal place of business at Sacramento, California. Western Aluminum Corpora- tion, a Washington corporation, owns all the stock of the foregoing Oregon and California corporations. Carl Amussen is president and F Barr Carruth is vice presi- dent of the several corporations. Together they handle labor relations for all the plants. For the purposes of these proceedings, I find that the aforesaid several corporations constitute a single integrated business enterprise which is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. During the year preceding the date of the hearing, Respondents, in the course and conduct of their business operations, purchased, transferred, and delivered to their plant at Salem, Oregon, the only one involved in these proceedings, aluminum and 1 Names of Respondents as appearing in complaint were corrected by motion made and' granted at hearing 1194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD other goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000, of which goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 were transported to said plant directly from States of the United States other than the State of Oregon. On the basis of the foregoing findings, I find that the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, has jurisdiction and that it will effectuate the policies ,of the Act to assert jurisdiction. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION The Union is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Respondents. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference, restraint, and coercion 1. Union organization Aside from the plant manager, Gaylord Howard, the Salem plant, on January 2, 1963, had a work force of three men, Laurel Williams, Thomas Ritchey, and James Johnston. On January 2, 1963, Williams went to the union hall and arranged with Harland Kelley, a representative of the Union, to meet with the employees. That night a meeting was held at Ritchey's house, and each of the employees signed authorization cards for the Union. The Union did not request recognition either in writing or verbally at the time but on January 4, 1963, filed a petition for an election. It was upon receipt of notification of the filing thereof that the Respondent learned of the Union's claims of interest. 2. The change in rules Upon receipt of this notice on January 5, 1963, Manager Howard telephoned Re- spondents' Sacramento office and reported the news to President Amussen. In this conversation, Howard spoke of a contemplated discharge of an employee.2 Amussen told Howard to wait until District Manager William Wobbe came to investigate the matter. Wobbe came to Salem and on Sunday, January 13, 1963, he spoke with Howard. Their conversation of that day was not recounted by Howard. On Monday, January 14, before lunchtime, Howard called the three employees to his office and, after a short preliminary statement, read to them from a piece of paper. Inferentially, Wobbe knew what Howard was going to read, and he approved. The paper was not produced. From the testimony of the several witnesses who were questioned about Howard's statements, I find that he told the employees that he had no personal feelings in the matter but that since "this situation" had arisen he had been instructed to read to them a list of new rules which were to be followed. Reading, Howard told the employees that henceforth they were to cease going through the office when going to the toilet, using instead a route through the warehouse; that henceforth petty cash would be handled by himself or Johnston (a clerical employee at least part of the time); that the "Company would no longer furnish the men with coveralls or gloves" (as had been done in the past); that there would be no more coffee breaks (thus eliminating a 10-minute coffee break which had been enjoyed each morning and each afternoon); that vacations were to be taken only in certain winter months (as had been the case before except in the case of Williams, who had taken his vacation in June to coincide with his National Guard duty); that the employees were no longer to receive personal telephone calls (a rule not previously enforced); that if Howard felt that business was not sufficient, he would lay a man off (a practice not previously followed because of the customary availability of maintenance work during slack periods); and that if the quality of a man's work or a man's attitude toward his work deteriorated, that would be cause for discharge. Howard testified that when he was in Sacramento on or about December 22, 1962, he had been instructed to enforce existing rules, some of which he had not enforced because "each of my employees I thought were terrific fellows and they really put out the work " He further testified, however, that management at Sacramento did not know that he was not enforcing the rules because they had only the sales figures to go by, and as long as the sales figures were good, the Sacramento management assumed that the Salem plant was being properly managed The rules he was then instructed to enforce did not coincide with all those promulgated on January 14, 'This finding is based on Howard's testimony. Howard probably was referring to the termination of an employee which, he testified, was considered on December 22, 1962 I make no finding, however, that the discharge discussed by Howard and Amusten was one previously decided on. WESTERN ALUMINUM OF OREGON INCORPORATED, ETC. 1195 1963. Howard testified that he was told to eliminate all overtime unless absolutely necessary; that he was to "minimize" coffee breaks or if he felt the need of it to eliminate them or, if they were continued, Howard should discontinue selling scrap metal for money with which to buy coffee, and that thereafter all coffee was to be purchased by the employees or Howard was to run a slip through on petty cash, and Amussen would buy the coffee for the Salem plant in Sacramento; and he testified that he was told to eliminate personal telephone calls. But at another point in his testimony, Howard testified that the elimination of coffee breaks and of the furnish- ing of coveralls and gloves were his ideas because he had been told to cut expenses to the bone. Howard gave no testimony concerning instructions he received from Wobbe other than that he should proceed with his announcement of the rules and with the discharge of one of the warehouse employees. Howard's failure to say anything to the employees about rules when he returned from California in late December, and the discrepancies between his testimony and Carruth's as well as in his own testimony, lead me to believe that Howard may have confused instructions received in Sacramento on December 22, 1962, with those he received from Wobbe on January 13, 1963. In any event, I do not credit the testimony that the announce- ment made on January 14, 1963, was one that had been contemplated on December 22, 1962, and that the failure sooner to make the announcement was caused by fear that the announcement would be misconstrued because of the union situation and that it was finally made on January 14 after having received legal advice, as Howard testified. Although the employees signed union authorization cards on January 2, 1963, the Respondents did not learn of the Union's intent in representing the em- ployees until January 5, 1963. Hence, at any time after Howard's return to Salem in late December until January 5, Howard should not have been afraid that his an- nouncement of rules would have been misconstrued. The announcement of the change in rules, I conclude from all the evidence, was not one directed on December 22 to be made but was a retaliatory measure to show the Respondents' displeasure over the employees' organizing and designating the Union as their collective-bargaining representative-a measure frequently termed a "crackdown." This was not a case of reiteration of existing rules. Even if some of the rules had previously existed (a matter of some doubt in my mind in view of the fact that I find the testimony of Howard and Carruth unreliable with respect to critical issues), Howard's failure after his return in late December to announce them as he allegedly had been instructed to do before he learned of the Union's interest is more logically explained on the ground that he was continuing to be lenient because he thought his employees were teriffic fellows. Obviously, his opinion changed markedly after he learned of their union activity, for then he not only prepared a list of rules and regulations, but went beyond anything he was allegedly instructed to do and, with Wobbe's approval, read a list which deprived the employees of benefits previously enjoyed. Some of the privileges of which the employes were deprived were merely such as made for more pleasant working conditions but, in terminating the practice of furnishing coveralls and gloves, the Respondents adversely affected the compensation of the employees, who thereafter would be compelled to purchase their own. Both the timing and the vindictive nature of the announced changes disclose a purpose on the Respondents' part to punish the employees for their having brought the Union into the picture. Although evidence indicative of this alone would suffice to establish a violation of the Act, I take into consideration also the evidence herein- after related in connection with my consideration of the other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint in finding, as I do, that the Respondents interfered with, restrained, and coerced the employees at their Salem plant in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by promulgating the foregoing rules and regulations on January 14, 1963. On January 16, 1963, Ritchey went to Howard's office. While he was there, Howard asked Ritchey what he thought about "the situation." Ritchey asked, "What situation?" Howard replied, "You know what I mean." Ritchey answered that if Howard meant the Union, "it means a lot of job security and you won't be able to dismiss people as you had prior." Ritchey testified that there were a few other comments that he could not remember except that Howard commented with respect to job security and wages, "Yes, that's certainly more than what I have." Howard testified that he had a conversation on January 16 but that it had taken place at a time when Ritchey was sweeping the floor-that he went to Ritchey and said, "Tom, I have no control over the policies that Western Aluminum sets. But what is your thinking of this situation?" He quoted Ritchey as replying that he was a laborer getting $2.50 an hour, that the union scale was $2.681/2 an hour, and that under the Union he would have security and seniority. He testified that Ritchey told of the Union's pension plan and commented that "Western Aluminum" had no plan. 1196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Howard also testified that Ritchey named various customers whose truckdrivers came to the plant and said that those drivers were members of the Union and that if the Respondents did not "see" the Union, "they [the Union] could button .. . [the plant] up tighter than a drum." The complaint does not allege that, by anything Howard said in the foregoing conversation with Ritchey on January 16, the Respondents interfered with, restrained, or coerced the employees in their exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and the General Counsel, in his brief, does not argue that any violation of the Act occurred at such time. I make no finding, therefore, with respect thereto, but the conversation is mentioned to show that Howard was wont to use the expres- sion, "the situation," in referring to the Union's efforts to be certified as the employees' bargaining representative. 3. Wage increase granted Johnston The record shows that District Manager Wobbe was in Salem on January 13, 1963. It does not show when he arrived, but he remained until about January 15. Presum- ably while Wobbe was in Salem on this same visit (Johnston was not sure of the date), Wobbe called Johnston into Howard's office to speak with him 3 Johnston could not remember how the conversation started after he arrived in the office, but he testified that he asked Wobbe if the latter wanted to hear "my feelings towards this union issue." According to Johnston, Wobbe said that he had "no authoriza- tion" to ask Johnston about his personal feelings toward the Union but that if John- ston wanted to say something, he would listen. In substance, Johnston told Wobbe that in view of the rapid turnover in personnel (one man , whom Johnston was hired on December 17, 1962, to replace, was terminated at the end of December; one employee was discharged on January 14, 1963; and a part-time employee, who had not worked at all during the first 6 months of 1962, was laid off about the end of December 1962 or early in January 1963), he "didn't feel as though the chances of progressing were very good." At the time of his conversation with Wobbe, John- ston. who had been hired by Howard on December 17, 1962, at $1 95 had already received an increase in December to $2.10 before he had even received his first pay- check. That raise was retroactive to the date of his hire. Later he received one effective from January 1, 1963, to $2 15 Howard did not testify to any approval of this increase in advance. He merely testified, "On the 15th [of January] when I mailed in the time cards, I showed a rate of two dollars and fifteen cents an hour," for Johnston. For all that appears, the decision to increase Johnston's pay beyond $2.10 could have been made after Johnston's conversation with Wobbe About January 21, Johnston, returning from lunch, found Manager Howard on the telephone. When Howard finished his conversation, he turned to Johnston and told him that he had just spoken with Vice President Carruth and, according to Johnston, "Mr. Car- ruth had authorized him, due to my feelings of insecurity in the job due to the rapid turnover of personnel since I have been there, that if he [Howard] felt that I was deserving that I should receive a raise to make me feel more secure." Johnston then received an increase, effective on January 15, to $2 25 an hour Carruth testified that when he noticed the $2.15 rate turned in for Johnston on the payroll records for the first half of January, he had telephoned Howard and questioned him about Johnston's worth and that, after Howard had praised Johnston in glowing terms, he had told Howard that if the man was that good, he should get an increase that was worthwhile rather than just a nickel raise. Carruth also testified that he had not heard of Johnston's feeling of insecurity or of his conversation with Wobbe until a few days before the hearing Johnston's last increase is alleged in the complaint to constitute a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The only basis for such a conclus;on would appear to be the timing of the increase and the fact that Johnston, in the aforesaid conversation with Wobbe, had mentioned a feeling of insecurity. Although suspicion is aroused because of the timing of the latest pay raise or of the last two pay raises and because of Wobbe's presence on January 15 and his conversation with Tohnston, I am not persuaded that the evidence is of a substantial enough character to support a finding of an unfair labor Practice Such a finding would strain the evidence. It would be necessary to find that the increase had been granted in order to induce Johnston to cease his support of the Union. as alleged in the complaint. No evidence was given to show that Johnston was asked to give up his support for the Union and I find it difficult to infer that merely from the 3 From the testimony of Howard, it is inferable that he, too, was present at this con- versation. Counsel failed to ask whether or not anyone besides Wobbe and Johnston was present at the time of the conversation. WESTERN ALUMINUM OF OREGON INCORPORATED , ETC. 1197 fact that Respondents wanted Johnston to feel secure in his job, a feeling that Carruth did not know of, so far as the evidence goes, when he suggested the last increase. Johnston was admittedly an excellent employee, with a potential for progressively more responsible work, and, when he was raised to $2.25, he was still not receiving the rate paid to other employees . Although I have found other unfair labor prac- tices at approximately the same period of time when Johnston received his wage increases for January , it must not be overlooked that the Respondents had legitimate interests to serve at the same time. Because the General Counsel's evidence does not preponderate over that of the Respondents that they were serving legitimate interests , I find that the complaint has not been sustained as to the allegation that Johnston's wage increase was in violation of the Act. B. Discrimination in regard to hire and tenure of employment 1. History of Williams' employment and union activities Laurel Williams had been employed by Respondents at the Salem warehouse for nearly 3 years prior to his discharge on January 14, 1963. He was the machine op- erator for the corrugator machine and performed general warehouse duties, such as loading and unloading trucks, waiting on customers, answering the telephone, occasionally typing invoices, and, in slack periods, performing maintenance work or making items of needed equipment . Although others sometimes ran the corruga- tor machine in Williams ' absence, I infer that it was his job when he was present and when work on it was needed. Howard testified that before he hired Johnston on December 17, 1962, he had offered Williams the chance to do bookkeeping in place of George Fulton , Johnston's predecessor. Williams had declined. Williams was the employee who went to the Union and arranged to have a rep- resentative attend a meeting on January 2, 1963. 2. Williams' discharge At the end of the workday, 4 p.m., on January 14 , 1963-the same day on which Howard read the list of new rules and regulations to the employees-Williams went to Howard 's office to fill in his time report . As Howard handed Williams his time report sheet, he said to Williams , "This is your last one." Williams asked why he was being discharged and Howard replied that he had nothing to say. Williams said that he felt he deserved some explanation . Howard replied, "No comment." He did, however make some statement intimating that the discharge was one directed by the Sacramento office 4 Williams said that he would learn through the Union why he was discharged . Then he left. On January 22, 1963 , Williams returned to the plant for his paycheck . Howard gave it to him. It paid him for his time but did not contain any vacation pay or severance pay. Williams asked if he was going to get his vacation pay. Howard said that he was not even going to apply for it. Howard had been plant manager since 1955. In that time he had terminated three employees . In each of the cases , Howard testified , Carruth had given 1 or 2 weeks' severance pay. Asked why Williams was not included in the practice of giving severance pay, Howard testified, "Because there was considerable hard feeling on Laurel's part when he left and I felt that the least said about anything , the better . . . . There is not anything in the rules that say that the boys should be paid severance pay. It was strictly out of the kindness of our heart; and if a man's going to leave me mad, I'm not about to bend over backwards and do him a favor." Apparently, Howard could set up a release with severance pay, without previous consultation with Sacramento , for he testified that when he discharged Fulton (who had been employed only from October 17, 1962, to the end of that year ) . . I gave him one week of severance pay." It does not appear that Carruth had approved thereof or that he even knew of it. From the testimony of Carruth and Howard with respect to the date of Fulton's termination , I infer that Carruth was not aware of the actual date of Fulton's discharge and was not consciously aware of the severance pay received by Fulton. 4 This finding is based on the testimony of Williams which , although wanting in syntax, conveyed the sense . The testimony is as follows : "And then I asked him if-he said then that Sacramento paid the checks and he didn 't have nothing to do--that he didn't have nothing to do with the firing or if tthat9] Sacramento did all the hiring and firing-I mean , without any of his say-so at all ." Howard did not testify as to his conversation with Williams at this time 1198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Respondents made no claim that Williams' work was unsatisfactory, but when he was released he was given no explanation-not even the one advanced at the hear- ing (economic conditions)-and he was not told that he would be recalled during the busy season-or at any time for that matter. Had the Respondents merely intended a temporary layoff, a manager with a clear conscience would have had no reason to withhold such information from the employee affected. Howard's noncommittal attitude, his statement that Williams' time report would be his last, and all the evidence establish beyond doubt that the Respondents intended a discharge and not a mere short-term layoff. 3. Respondents' explanation of Williams' discharge As related by Respondents' witnesses Carruth and Howard, the latter left Salem on a vacation, starting during the week before Christmas, and drove to California- En route to his destination, Howard stopped in Sacramento on December 22 and met with Amussen, Carruth, and another plant superintendent. According to Carruth this was lust a general management meeting. At this time, according to Carruth, he told Howard to eliminate all overtime possible but to pay overtime when needed, to keep unauthorized people out of the warehouse, and not to let anything go out of the warehouse without an invoice.5 At the same meeting, according to Carruth, a decision was reached to reduce the force at Salem to a total of three people, including Howard. Which employee was to be dismissed was left to Howard-"We just told him to dismiss one of the two, other than himself." Carruth's reference to "one of the two" is significant in view of the fact that he had previously testified that until December 16, when Johnston was hired, the plant operated with four men. Obviously, after Johnston was hired, there were no less than five,6 but it was understood when Johnston was hired that Fulton was to be discharged. When Howard returned to Salem and discharged Fulton at the end of December there were again four full-time employees including Howard. Carruth testified that at the December meeting they decided to reduce the staff by one more and that Howard was to do this "immediately on his return to Salem." It is apparent that the only termination of the enumerated employees made immediately upon Howard's return was that of Fulton. Williams was not discharged immediately; in fact he was retained for another 2 weeks after Howard's return to Salem. If he had been instructed to terminate a man, in addition to Fulton, immediately upon his return to Salem and failed to do it, Howard would have been guilty of insubordination. Howard attempted to explain the delay in terminating a man by saying that, as in the case of the announcement of the rules, he held up the termination because of receipt of notice of the filing of the petition by the Union. As previously shown, however, Howard had ample time to carry out his orders before he learned of the Union. I am convinced, therefore, that on December 22, 1962, there was no consideration given to the termination of Williams, Ritchey, or Johnston. However, another termination did take place, but it was one which the Respondents' witnesses failed to mention-that was a part- time employee whom Howard referred to as the janitor (although there were times when this man performed production or maintenance work was well as mere clean- ing work). This employee was Robert Newton, a man who held another job during the day and work for Respondents at night or on his days off from his full-time job. Newton had been employed at the Salem plant off and on since 1959. In 1962, Newton was not employed by Respondents for the first 6 months of the year, although in 1961 he had worked each month of the year. From the earnings' record of Newton which was introduced in evidence, along with Newton's testimony, I conclude that when Newton performed only janitorial work he was paid $50 a month for full months. Anything more than that would have been for work in production or maintenance. The record in evidence shows that in October 1962 Newton earned $97.50; in November, $113; and in December, $87. In January 1963, however, he is shown as having earned only $25. From this and from evidence hereinafter related, I deduce that, at the end of the year 1962 or shortly after the first of the year 1963, Newton's services were dispensed with and then were resumed after Williams' discharge, and, apparently, Newton's work when he was rehired was not merely janitorial, for he testified that he occasionally helped put stock up and helped on Saturdays "when they roll valley." On all the evidence. I conclude that a discharge of Williams, Ritchey, or Johnston was not contemplated at the meeting of December 22, but that it was contemplated that Newton's services as well as Fulton's were to be dispensed with when Howard returned to Salem at the end of December 1962. At this point in his testimony Carruth did not enumerate any other rules that were to be enforced O Howard, Fulton, Williams, Ritchey, and Johnston. WESTERN ALUMINUM OF OREGON INCORPORATED, ETC. 1199 Carruth testified that "shortly after October or November 1962," he had prepared some figures showing the ratio of the payroll at the Salem plant to the sales of that plant. He did not testify that these figures were produced at the meeting of Decem- ber 22. From these figures, however, Carruth observed that for several months after each December the ratio of payroll to sales was nearly three times that "during normal operation," ° and that this was a consideration for reducing the staff. I am still not persuaded that the Respondents, in December 1962, intended to cut the staff as drastically as they did by the discharge of Williams. In the first place, about January 9, 1963, Howard hired an employee to take charge of the warehouse of Oregon Screen, which although separate from that of Western Aluminum of Oregon, apparently was adjacent to it for it was occasionally entered by employees of the latter on business. This new employee was hired by Howard with Carruth's permission. Howard gave the new employee to understand that he was to be in complete charge of that warehouse, that it was to be "his baby," and that the job was a permanent one. Carruth testified that he understood that this employee was hired merely for a repair job and was strictly temporary. I do not credit this testimony. The day after the new man started on the job, President Amussen telephoned Howard and told Howard that he had not been consulted about the employment of the new employee and that that employee should be released at once. Oregon Screen was a new opera- tion, just commencing on January 1, 1963. When Howard carried out Amussen's orders, he told the newly hired employee that his hire had apparently been premature and that he should check back with Howard later. It does not appear that Oregon Screen ever hired anyone else, but someone must have been working for it, because in January, February, and March, 1963, it had sales totaling $2,300. Following Williams' discharge, both Johnston and Howard began to do more and more work in the warehouse. Johnston had estimated on January 13 or 14 that he worked in the office 75 percent of the time and in the warehouse 25 percent of his time. After Williams' discharge, however Johnston spent about half his time in the warehouse, and, as time went on, he even worked overtime there. Howard, who had seldom done much physical work in the warehouse, also began to devote a good share of his time to working in the warehouse. Ritchey estimated that Howard averaged about 3 days' work a week in the warehouse. When Ritchey was on his vacation, Johnston spent 75 percent of his time in the warehouse. On January 29, 1963, Howard wrote an interoffice memorandum to Wobbe and Carruth. He was unable to remember whether or not he actually had dispatched it, but he conceded that the statements therein were true and that they expressed his thoughts. It read: 1/29/63. Re: Bills letter of 1/28/63 BARx-BILL: Please rember [sic], when I say Business Bad I am comparing it with the previous two months. Comparing this January with January of 62 we are enjoying a terrific business. 3 boys can't be spinning their wheels very much and still have a $55M month. It is true when you look at 2-3-4 or 5 days business AFTER the business has been done it is possible to see where the order file might have averaged out at a good day for each day of the period. We both know orders don't come in evenly spaced. Last January we did but $18M this month we are going to do $55M. This is darn unusual-I am certain you will admit, and the fact that it is unusual is a point that is being overlooked. I don't enjoy working all of these overtime hours and I don't believe that Carl [Amussen] expects any of his employees to work the hours that I have been working; but just how do you or I determine on Tuesday night whether or not Wed. is going to bring forth many more orders or be void? It is my believe [sic] that I must keep the board as clear as possible to avoid any unexpected. Working late is the only way that I can accomplish this. It was Bills [sic] wish that I "keep the warehouse as quiet as possible in the event that the union or NLRB comes snooping around"; to to [sic] this I have to work late. I am not kicking about the hours that I am working, I feel that you feel the situation in Salem is larger [largely9] of my doing and I am ready and willing to work any and all kinds of hours to compensate for the damage done. I would just like some idea of how long this is going to continue. Bills [sic] statement "when business gets better on a continuous basis you can ask for 7 The figures produced show that in 1962 the percentages of sales represented by the payroll were as follow,;* January, 10 8 percent ; February, 7 5 percent ; March, 6.1 per- cent, April, 3 S percent May, 3 9 percent ; June, 4 3 percent ; July, 3 1 percent ; August, 3 1 percent September, 3 6 percent, October, 3 6 (2 4 9) percent ; November, 3.3 percent, December, 3 7 percent No figures were presented for prior years 1200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD' approval for help" is certainly anything but a cheering thought. What do you{ call better and what do you call a continuous basis? I have valley to roll and skid boards to cut, just how do you suggest that I get this done ? This is work that my janitor did-which is the whole point of this letter, I want to rehire my janitor . I feel to manage this plant properly I shall eventual [ sic] need 1 more employee but will shoot for my janitor now and the additional employee when this situation dies down. GAIL. I interpret Howard's expression "this situation" to mean the union situation. This, is evident from his use of the same expression not only in his preliminary statement to the employees on January 14 before he read the list of new rules and regulations but also more clearly in his conversation with Ritchey on January 16. The Respondents ' business is seasonal . Normally business in the wintertime is quite slow but impioves with spring and becomes heavy during July, August, and, September. In 1962 the busy season was extended by the fact that a hurricane struck the area on October 12. It extended into December . Although January was slower than the months preceding it, business in that month was up markedly over that of January 1962. In previous years , the regular employees , including Williams, had been carried through the slack period , because, although sales were slow, the slack period was utilized for maintenance work (including the making of various utensils ) and for building up the inventory . This, I infer, is the basis for Howard's statement in his memorandum , "I have valley to roll and skid boards to cut." In prior years Howard had gone out on sales tours in the slow season. He did not do so in 1963. The Respondents sought to explain Howard 's failure to go on sales trips on the ground that competition had invaded the area and limited the geographi- cal area in which the Salem plant could get orders . I find that this was not the only reason , even if it was a reason at all. With all the time which Howard was required to spend on production after Williams' discharge , little spare time would have been available in which to leave town , although he did make four sales trips to Portland in early 1963 . Furthermore, sales in January 1963 were $55,000 as against $18 ,000 in January 1962. Further sales would have necessitated the hiring of additional men. This the Respondents were apparently seeking to avoid. Howard testified that, in selecting Williams rather than Ritchey for discharge, he took into consideration that Ritchey had experience in going out on sales tours whereas Williams had not. Yet if sales tours had been eliminated because of Respondents' constricted sales area, such a consideration would have been of no value. It is difficult to believe that a company would seek to reduce expenses by dis- charging a production worker and by putting the plant manager to work on produc- tion and working him and other employees overtime when there was more than enough work to warrant keeping the discharged man. This conduct alone suggests two motivations by Respondents for Williams ' discharge : to strike at the employee who got the Union started , and to create a situation where an election would not be conducted because there would be only one production worker in the appropriate unit 8 But if any doubt remained , I would find it to be removed by a consideration of all the circumstances , including, but not limited to, those attending the actual discharge of Williams, when Howard refused to explain Williams' discharge and denied him severance and vacation pay. Among other circumstances which are not to be overlooked , however, are Howard's statements in his memorandum that it "was Bill's [Wobbe's] wish that I 'keep the warehouse as quiet as possible in the event that the union or NLRB comes snooping around,"' and , "I feel that you feel the situation in Salem is larger [largely ?] of my doing and I am ready and willing to work any and all kinds of hours to compensate for the damage done." In fact, for a time after Wobbe's visit in January 1963, Howard had instructed Johnston not to go into the warehouse to work. The restraint, for a time, on Johnston 's work- ing in the warehouse appears to have been a measure designed to justify the claim that Johnston was a clerical employee only and hence was not in the unit. How- ever, because of the press of work, Howard not only had Johnston start working in the warehouse again but gradually increased his time there until Johnston was work- ing there half his time and was even doing overtime work , mostly in the warehouse On all the evidence , then, I conclude and find that the discharge of Laurel Williams was discriminatorily motivated by a purpose to discourage the union membership and organization of the Respondents' emnloyees for the purposes of collective bargaining as well as by a purpose of punishing Williams for his union activity. 8 See in section C . below, entitled "Refusal to bargain," the letter of Wobbe to the Board dated January 15, 1963 WESTERN ALUMINUM OF OREGON INCORPORATED, ETC. 1201 C. Refusal to bargain 1. The appropriate unit The complaint alleges that all employees of the Respondents at their Salem, Oregon, plant, exclusive of all supervisors as defined in the Act , constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. The Respondents' answer denied this allegation. At the hearing, however, it was stipulated by the parties that such unit would be appropriate with one amendment-the exclusion of office clerical employees in addition to the ex- clusion of supervisors. Accordingly, I find that all employees of the Respondents employed at their Salem, Oregon, plant,9 exclusive of all office clerical employees and all supervisors as defined in the Act , constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 2. The Union's majority in the appropriate unit On January 2, 1963, the only three employees who could be contended to be in the appropriate unit signed authorization cards for the Union. There is no evidence that any of these authorizations was thereafter revoked by the signer. This situation continued until Williams' discharge on January 14, 1963. It is contended by the Respondents that Johnston was an office clerical employee and therefore was to be excluded from the unit and that, after Williams' discharge, there was only one employee in the unit and that the Union would not be certified by the Board for a one-man unit. Inasmuch as I have found that Williams was dis- charged discriminatorily in violation of the Act, however, I find that he should continue to be counted in the unit. It is not necessary, therefore, to decide whether or not Johnston was in the appropriate unit. I find, consequently, that on January 2, 1963, and at all times material thereafter, the Union was and now is the exclusive representative of the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 3. The issues as to refusal to bargain As previously noted, the Union filed a petition for an election on January 4, 1963, and the Respondents received notification of this fact from the Board on the follow- ing day. Neither document is in evidence. The General Counsel in his brief refers to the Respondents' failure to respond and state their position or to reply as to whether or not they would consent to an election, apparently in support of his position that there was an anticipatory refusal to bargain. The record does not fully establish the asserted facts. In any event, I would give such failure on Re- spondents' part to respond, if such was the case, no evidentiary value by itself. As previously related, on or about January 11, 1963, Howard went to the union office and told Graham, the Union's secretary-treasurer, that, now that the employees wanted the Union, he would like a copy of a contract. Graham told Howard that he did not have any contracts on file at that time but that he would have some in a few days and he would send one to Howard. Graham did not send such copy, however. He testified that he did not do so because he learned that the Respondents would not consent to an election and he did not think it would do any good to send one. On January 15, 1963, the day following Howard 's reading of the Respondents' new rules and regulations and the discharge of Williams , District Manager Wobbe (on stationery of the Salem plant ) wrote to the Regional Office of the Board, stating: We wish to advise you that on this date the Western Aluminum plant at Salem, Oregon has but one employee in its warehouse . It is our understanding that the Petition dated Jan. 4th, 1963 (Case No. 36-RC-1803) would not apply under these conditions, therefor, we ask that the hearing set for January 17th, 1963 be canceled. We also wish to state that on the date of Jan. 4th , the date of the Petition, that we had two employees in the plant. However, on Dec. 22nd at a general managers meeting in Sacramento , the manager of the Salem plant was instructed to reduce his manufacturing staff by one man due to economic conditions. The Salem manager was on his way south at the time for a vacation -holiday and did not return to Salem until the end of the year , thus this order was not carried out at once due to the presentation of the Petition . However, we have been advised that we are within our legal rights to cause a lay-off for these reasons 9 1 interpret this to include Oregon Screen 1202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and have, therefor, reduced the staff in accord with the decision of Dec. 22nd, 1962. 1 have found that the layoff of Williams (or anyone other than Fulton and Newton) was not considered at the meeting of December 22 referred to in Wobble's letter, a time when economic considerations were not such as to require such drastic action (the Salem plant even on that date was enjoying one of the best sales records in its history for that time of year), and I have found that Williams' dis- charge was discriminatory within the meaning of the Act. Wobbe's letter makes it even clearer that the Respondents had an ulterior purpose in discharging Wil- liams. Among other things, it gave the Respondents a basis for attempting to avoid the contemplated election and to avoid dealing with the Union. The Respondents contend that the Union at no time requested them to bargain and that therefore there was no refusal to bargain. Although the filing of a petition for certification may suffice as a request for recognition in order to raise a question concerning representation, 10 it does not constitute a request to bargain as an essential element to an unfair labor practice." The General Counsel, however, argues that such demand was excused here because Howard, by going to the union office, as previously related, and saying that now that the employees wanted the Union, he would like to have a copy of the Union's contract, he acknowledged the Respondents' obligation to negotiate a contract, after which "it would have been pointless to have 'demanded' " that the Respondents bargain. This conduct, argues the General Counsel, constitutes a special circumstance such as was alluded to in the decision of the Board in Waffard Cabinet Company, supra, where it said (pp. 1408-1409): It is now well established that, absent special circumstances not present here, a prerequisite to a finding of a refusal to bargain by an employer is a clear and unequivocal demand for bargaining by the union. In making reference to special circumstances, the Board cited Old Town Shoe Company, 91 NLRB 240, where, after bargaining to a standstill, the employees struck, and the employer not only publicly stated that it would not bargain during the strike but solicited individual employees to return to work and sought to avoid any meeting with the union, even when the union, late in the strike, through in- termediaries, requested a meeting. On these facts the Board held that the employer had not only stated that it would not bargain during the continuance of the strike but also, by its conduct, had demonstrated that the intent expressed was an un- equivocal one and so found a refusal to bargain from the date of the employer's public statement of intention not to bargain. The Board there also cited other cases, presumably involving special circumstances. 12 In each of the cited cases, the union had made affirmative efforts to bargain with the respondent, which ef- forts had been rebuffed by the employer. In the instant case, the only step taken by the Union looking toward bargaining was the filing of a petition. Can it be said that, without any further action on the part of the Union to bargain, a request and a refusal will be inferred from the filing of a petition (even though the Union had authorization cards of a majority of the employees) and subsequent unfair labor practices by the Respondents in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act designed to defeat the Union's majority representation. In my opinion, the answer is in the negative. There was nothing in these circumstances to indicate that the Union was prepared to negotiate a contract and desired to do so at the time when the Respondents committed their unlawful acts. Certainly the Union should have exhibited this much interest before the legal duty to bargain would attach to the Respondents. True, the Respondents' words and actions demonstrated an intent to avoid organization of the Salem plant and a disposition not to recognize or deal with the Union, but although such disposi- tion may affect the remedy required to efface the effects of the unfair labor practices, I cannot, and do not, on the evidence, find a refusal to bargain with the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in con- nection with the operations of the Respondents described in section I, above, have 10 United States Plywood Corporation and %aliston, Inc., 112 NLRB 1471, 1473. " John Waffard, d/b/a Wafard Cabinet Company, 95 NLRB 1407; Laabs, Inc., 128 NLRB 374 12 Norfolk Southern Bus Corporation, 66 NLR.B 1165, 1176; The Burke Machine Tool Company, 36 NLRB 1329, 1341-1342. WESTERN ALUMINUM OF OREGON INCORPORATED, ETC. 1203 a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend co lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com- merce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY It has been found herein that the Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. I shall, therefore, recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It has been found that the Respond- ents did not refuse,to bargain with the Union. Hence, I shall not recommend that they cease and desist from refusing to bargain. However, it has been found that the Union on January 2, 1963, was designated by a majority of the Respondents' employees in an appropriate unit, that, hence, the Union at all times material hereto has been the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all the employees in such unit, and that the Respondents have shown a disposition to evade any obligation to recognize or bargain with the Union. For this reason, I find that in order to assure that the desires of Respondents' employees be not frustrated in the future, it will be necessary, and will effectuate the policies of the Act, to include in the remedial order, an order that the Respondents, upon request by the Union, bargain collectively with the Union.13 Since it has been found that the Respondents discriminated against Laurel Wil- liams in order to discourage union membership and to interfere with, restrain, and coerce the employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, I shall recommend that Respondents offer Laurel Williams immediate and full rein- statement to his former or substantially equivalent position and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as hereinafter specified. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondents constitute a single employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. 2. Respondents are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 3. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 4. A unit composed of all employees of Respondents at their Salem, Oregon, plant, excluding office clerical employees and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 5. At all times since January 2, 1963, the Union has been, and now is, the ex- clusive representative of all the employees in the unit described in paragraph 4, above, for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 6. By promulgating rules and regulations depriving the employees of benefits previously enjoyed, because they had designated the Union as their collective- bargaining representative, Respondents have interferred with, restrained, and coerced their employees in their exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 7. By discouraging union membership by discrimination in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Laurel Williams, Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 9. Respondents have not refused to bargain upon request with the Union within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act and they have not violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by granting a wage increase to their employee, James Johnston. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in the case, I recommend an order that Respondents, Western Aluminum of Oregon Incorporated, Western Aluminum Corporation (a California corporation), and Oregon Screen Corporation (an Oregon corporation), their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 13 See Summit Mining Corporation v. N.L R.B , 260 F 2d 894 (C A 3) ; N L.R.B. v. Joe and Mike Caldarera, d/b/a Falstaff Distributing Company, 209 F. 2d 265 (C.A. 8). 727-083-64-vol. 141-77 1204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership of any employees in General Teamsters Local No. 324, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or in any other labor organization of their own choosing, by discharging or in any other manner discriminating against any employee in regard to his hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment, except as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing their employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the aforenamed Union or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of 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 organi- zation as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Upon request, bargain with General Teamsters Local No. 324, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as the exclusive representative of their Salem, Oregon, employees in the unit herein found appropriate, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. (b) Offer to Laurel Williams immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges. (c) Make said Williams whole for any loss he may have suffered because of the discrimination against him, by paying him a sum of money equal to that which he would have earned in Respondents' employ between January 14, 1963, the date of his discharge, and a date 5 days after the date of the Respondents' offer of reinstate- ment,14 provided, however, that if the offer of reinstatement be rejected or be not accepted within 5 days after the date of the said offer, the cutoff date for backpay shall be the date of receipt by Williams of the offer of reinstatement, 15 including interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum, less his net earnings elsewhere during said period, such sum to be computed in accordance with the Board's established practice 16 (d) 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 amount of backpay due. (e) Post at their plant at Salem, Oregon, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 17 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region (Seattle, Washington), shall, after having been duly signed, be posted by the Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ- ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to assure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (f) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what steps they have taken to comply herewith.18 "This time is designed to, give Williams an opportunity to receive and consider the offer and to serve notice of quitting upon his current employer, if he be still employed 15 Williams is privileged to accept the offer of reinstatement after said 5-day period only to the extent that the provisions of the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training Act of 1948, as amended, are applicable 'IF. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 ; Isis Plumbing & Heating Co , 138 NLRB 716. 11In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "A De- cision 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 "A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "A Decision and Order." 1s In the event that this Recommended Order is 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 " WESTERN ALUMINUM OF OREGON INCORPORATED, ETC. 1205 I also recommend that, unless, within said period of 20 days, the Respondents notify the said Regional Director that they will comply with the foregoing Recom- mended Order, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Re- spondents to take the action aforesaid. I further recommend that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges that the Respondents violated Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act in giving their employee, Johnston, a wage increase and that they violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. 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 Rela- tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization , to form, join, or assist General Teamsters Local No. 324, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehouse- men and Helpers of America, or any other labor organizadon , to bargain col- lectively through representatives of their own choosing , or to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities , except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment , as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. WE WILL, upon request, bargain with General Teamsters Local No. 324, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help- ers of America, as the exclusive representative of our employees in the ap- propriate unit with respect to rates of pay , wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment , and, if an understanding is reached , embody such understanding in a signed agreement . The appropriate unit is: All employees at our Salem, Oregon, plant , excluding all office clerical employees and all supervisors as defined in the Act. WE WILL offer to Laurel Williams immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to his seniority or other rights or privileges , and we will make him whole for any loss of earn- ings he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him. WE WILL notify said Williams if he is presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in ac- cordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces All our employees are free to become, remain , or refrain from becoming or remaining members of the above-named Union , or any other labor organization, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring mem- bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as amended. WESTERN ALUMINUM OF OREGON INCORPORATED, WESTERN ALUMINUM CORPORATION (A CALI- FORNIA CORPORATION ), AND OREGON SCREEN CORPORATION (AN OREGON CORPORATION). Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 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 Subregional Office, 612 Lincoln Building, 208 SW. Fifth Avenue , Portland 4 , Oregon, Telephone No. Capitol 2-1607, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. 0