Scientific Glass Apparatus Co., Inc.

SCIENTIFIC GLASS APPARATUS CO., INC. DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE 29 Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes the following determination of dis- pute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act: 1. Carpenters employed' by Belou & Co. Accoustics, Inc., who are represented by Carpenters Local Union 1846, are entitled to perform the work of attaching horizontal, metal tracks to the floors and ceil- ings and then inserting metal studs vertically within the tracks to re- ceive drywall board, called sheetrock, which is attached to the track and stud by means of a screw-nail, in the Royal Orleans Hotel, New Orleans, Louisiana. 2. Lathers Local Union No. 62, Wood, Wire & Metal Lathers Inter- national Union, AFL-CIO, is not entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to force or require the Employer to assign the above work to lathers. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, Lathers Local Union No. 62, Wood, Wire & Metal Lathers International Union, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in writing, whether it will or will not refrain from forcing or requiring the Employer, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D), to assign the work in dispute to lathers rather than to carpenters. Scientific Glass Apparatus Co., Inc. and Sales Drivers, Food Proc- essors, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 952, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen & Helpers of America. Case No. 21-CA-5559. De- cember 14, 1964 DECISION AND ORDER On August 6, 1964, Trial Examiner Herman Marx issued his Deci- sion 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 Trial Examiner's Deci- sion. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Exam- iner's Decision and a supporting brief.' , Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with 1 The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied as, in our opinion, the record, including the Respondent's exceptions and brief, adequately presents the issues and the positions of the parties. 150 NLRB No. 12. 30 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom 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 Trial Ex- aminer's Decision, the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the en- tire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order, the Order recom- mended by the Trial Examiner and orders that the Respondent, Sci- entific Glass Apparatus Co., Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom- mended Order, with the following modification : Insert the following as a separate paragraph following paragraph 2(a) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, renumbering suc- ceeding paragraphs accordingly : "(b) Notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces." DECISION OF THE TRIAL EXAMINER STATEMENT OF THE CASE The complaint alleges that the Respondent, Scientific Glass Apparatus Co., Inc. (herein called the Company), has violated Section 8 (a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. 151 et seq.; also referred to herein as the Act), by discharging, and refusing to reinstate, five named employees because they engaged in a strike or joined or assisted a labor organization named Sales Drivers, Food Processors, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 952, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America (herein called the Union); and has by the foregoing and other conduct abridged rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 of the Act, thus violating Section 8 (a)(1) of the statute.' The Respondent has filed an answer which, in material substance, denies the com- mission of the unfair labor practices imputed to it in the complaint. Pursuant to notice duly served upon each of the other parties by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, a hearing upon the issues in this proceeding has been held before Trial Examiner Herman Marx at Los Angeles, California. The General Counsel and the Respondent appeared through, and were represented by, respective counsel ; and each of the parties was afforded a full oppor- tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, adduce evidence, file a brief, and submit oral argument . Decision was reserved upon a motion to dismiss the complaint, made by the Respondent upon the close of the evidence. The motion 1 The complaint was issued on November 29, 1963, and is based upon a charge filed by the Union with the Board on September 19, 1963, and an amendment thereof filed on Novem- ber 19, 1963. Copies of the complaint , the charge , and the amended charge have been duly served upon the Respondent. SCIENTIFIC GLASS APPARATUS CO., INC. 31 is denied upon the basis of the findings and conclusions made below. I have read and considered the respective briefs of the General Counsel and Respondent filed with me since the close of the hearing. The Union, which filed the charge upon which this proceeding is based, has not filed a brief. Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. NATURE OF THE COMPANY'S BUSINESS ; JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD The Company is a New Jersey corporation; maintains its principal office and a place of business in Bloomfield, New Jersey, and branches in other States, including one at Fullerton, California; is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of scientific equipment and related products; and is, and has been at all material times, an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. The issues in this pro- ceeding involve only the Fullerton plant. In the course and conduct of its business operations, the Company ships and de- livers goods valued in excess of $50,000 from points located outside California to its place of business'in Fullerton. By reason of such shipments the Company is, and has been at all material times, engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Accordingly, the National Labor Relations Board has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED As the complaint alleges, and the answer admits, the Union is, and has been at all material times, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Prefatory statement The Company's Fullerton branch consists, in the main, of office and warehouse facilities, and normally has a staff of some 10 persons, including office personnel, warehousemen, outside salesmen, and a general manager named Clifford Boreen, who is in charge of the operations of the branch and is, and has been at all times material to the issues, a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. As of September 16, 1963,2 the office staff (excluding Boreen) consisted of five individuals- David Florez, Mary Weber, John R. Murphy, Edith Shibla, and Esther Bushay. The warehousemen were John Vander Heide and Gary C. Bronsart. Although Florez was primarily concerned with purchasing duties, he also exercised supervision over other personnel, subject to Boreen's authority, substituting for the general manager in the latter's absence; and, as stipulated at the hearing, was, at all material times, a supervisor within the purview of Section 2(11) of the Act. There is disagreement, however, whether Bronsart had such a status. I find, con- trary to the Respondent, that he did not have it, notwithstanding the fact that he had the title of "warehouse manager." Vander Heide, it may be noted, had formerly held the title, but the duties of both warehousemen remained substantially the same after the change. In the main, Bronsart's functions consisted of the preparation of merchandise for packing and shipment by Vander Heide; and of related "paper work." Plainly, whatever authority Bronsart was empowered to exercise was "of a merely routine or clerical nature," and thus was not supervision within the scope of Section 2(11). On September 16, shortly after 8 a.m., the customary starting time, Florez gave Boreen written statements of "grievances" from himself, Bronsart, Murphy, Weber, Shibla, and Bushay. Whether the grievances were justified is of no moment here, nor is it necessary to dwell on them in detail; and it will suffice to note that they in- cluded criticisms of Boreen's management, and of wage conditions, and sought im- provements in terms and conditions of employment. The submission of the grievances was followed by a discussion of their contents between Boreen and the others, Florez doing most of the talking for the employees (as well as in subsequent talks with Boreen to be described later). During the course of the discussion, Florez asked Boreen a number of times to wire or telephone the Company's general manager (also described in the record as one of the "owners"), 2 Unless otherwise indicated, all dates set forth below occurred in 19G3 775-602-65-vol. 150-4 32 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD William J. Geyer, Jr., at its main office in Bloomfield, New Jersey, and request him to come to Fullerton for a discussion of the grievances. Boreen declined to do so, stating that Geyer was due in Fullerton in 6 weeks, and that the grievances could be taken up with him at that time. Other details of what was said regarding the grievances are of no moment, nor, happily for the interests of materiality, does the record spell out much of the minutiae that must have been involved in the hours of talk that took place. It will suffice to say that the discussion continued until about 12:30 p.m.; that it bore no fruit; that, without any objection by Boreen, relatively little work was done by Florez and the other employees involved; that one or another of the employees suggested that they go to lunch as a group, rather than on a "staggered" basis as was customary, in order to discuss their positions; that Boreen gave his permission; and that Bronsart, Weber, Murphy, Bushay, Shibla, and Florez left for lunch in a body about 12:30 p.m. Although the allotted and customary lunch period for each was 45 minutes, the group was gone for some 2 to 3 hours, spending much of the time seeking advice about union "representation" from various State agencies, with the result that they were referred at one point or another to the Union, proceeded to its office, and there consulted a representative of the organization and signed "authorization cards." Upon their return, Boreen asked them where they had been, and Florez related, in substance, that they had called on various State agencies, had been referred to a union, and had gone to it for advice regarding representation. There is no dispute that Boreen made a reply to this, but the record reflects material conflict as to its content between the General Counsel's witnesses (Murphy, Bronsart, Florez, Bushay, and Shibla), on the one hand, and Boreen and Robert Ledbetter, one of the Com- pany's salesmen, who was present, on the other. There are variables in the respective terms in which the General Counsel's wit- nesses quote Boreen, but the central thrust of his remarks, as each quotes him, is that the Company would not tolerate ("go for" or "stand for") union activity by the employees; and, in addition, all such witnesses, except Bronsart, quote Boreen, in one form or another, to the effect that the employees involved were subject to discharge for engaging in union activity .3 Boreen, on the other hand, testifying for the Respondent, quotes himself as saying that "I could not see why we could not handle this among ourselves and have our conversation and settle this without the union coming into this, the settlement, that we had among ourselves." Ledbetter, called by the Respondent, quotes Boreen in substantially similar vein. The record contains objective evidence that supports a conclusion that Boreen did, in substance, voice a threat of reprisal against the employees for engaging in union activity. The evidence consists of a document labeled "Employee-Management Arbi- tration" (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 4), dictated by Murphy to Weber in Boreen's presence, and typed by Weber, in the office on the morning of September 17, much of which was devoted to continued discussion by employees and Boreen of the griev- ances submitted to him on the previous day. The document consists, basically, of a listing of "Assets" and "Liabilities" of given courses of action. Item III of the paper lists as "Liabilities" of union representation that: "Cliff (Boreen) will be terminated. Dave (Florez) and John (Murphy) will be singled out and dismissed at earliest pos- sible chance. Other key employees stand to be discriminated against eventually." Boreen admittedly "listened" to the dictation and made no comment with respect to item III. Moreover, upon completion of the typing, a copy of the document was given to Boreen; he retired to his private office where he read it; and it is evident that after doing so, he raised no objection to the prediction of discharge and dis- crimination it contains. 3 The General Counsel's witnesses respectively quote Boreen's reply as set forth below: Munrar: Bloomfield would not go for it; that he (Boreen) would not go for 1t; that this would end up in all of us losing our jobs. We might as well go out and seek employment now and cut it off. BRONSART : If you went to the union you might as well cut it off now. Bloomfield won't go for it. FLOREZ: That is it. If you went to the union we might as well cut it off right now. You are through. I don't want the union in here and Bloomfield would not go for it BUSHAY: All right, if you are going to the union, let us cut it off right now. You can seek employment someplace else SHIBLA: If you have gone to the union, you might as well cut it off right now be- cause you can all seek employment elsewhere. Bloomfield will never stand for it. SCIENTIFIC GLASS APPARATUS CO., INC. 33 The content of item III, coupled with Boreen's failure to object to it, adds cor- roborative weight to the evidence of the General Counsel's witnesses, supporting their testimony to the effect that Boreen had made antecedent remarks on the subject of the Company's hostility toward union activity by employees at the Fullerton branch. That view of the matter is not negated by Boreen's testimony that factory and ware- house employees at the Bloomfield plant are represented by a union. Without imply- ing a judgment as to the relevancy of that testimony, it is enough to note that the record tells us nothing of the circumstances of such representation; and that, obvi- ously, an employer's attitude toward collective bargaining may turn on such variables as the type of employees (for example, whether factory or office workers), regional attitudes toward unionization, the state of the labor market, and his economic strength in relation to the collective economic pressures the employees can bring against him. I find, in sum, that in response to the disclosure that the employees had counseled with a union regarding their representation, Boreen made statements to the effect that the Company would not tolerate union activity by the employees, and that they were subject to discharge for engaging in it. Much of the afternoon of September 16, following the return of Florez and his lunch companions to the office, was taken up with a continued discussion by them and Boreen of the grievances. As in the morning session, the participants achieved no results and did relatively little work. The discussion resumed the following morning, practically at the beginning of the workday, and continued throughout much of the morning. A substantial portion of the time was devoted to dictation and preparation of the "Employee-Management Arbitration," previously mentioned. During the course of the morning, Florez asked Vander Heide to join those in the office, and the latter did so. As on the previous day, relatively little work was done, Boreen offering no objection until about noon when he told the employees that "some work had to be done," and "a settlement had to be made." One of the employees, noting that the lunch period was at hand, suggested that the employees go to lunch as a group and discuss the "Employee- Management Arbitration," and Boreen consented, telling the group not to take longer than an hour .4 Murphy, Florez, Weber, Bushay, Vander Heide, Bronsart, and Shibla thereupon left for lunch together, all going in Bronsart's car. The group went to a restaurant, but finding it crowded, drove to Bushay's house in Fullerton where they had lunch and remained for several hours discussing their grievances and the contents of the "Employee-Management Arbitration " Vander Heide protested a number of times that their absence was excessive, stating that he wished to return to work, and was assured (apparently by Florez) that he would be taken back to work. After some hours at Bushay's home, the group left in Bronsart's car for the plant, some 2 or 3 miles from Bushay's residence. They paused briefly on the way because one of the women became ill, and arrived at the Company's parking lot adjacent to the plant about 3:30 or 4:30 p.m. (estimates of the time vary). At one point or another, either during the trip or upon their arrival, all but Vander Heide decided not to enter the plant. According to Florez, the reason was that he and the others involved were "upset" and not feeling well. This could have been a factor, at least with Florez who appears to me to be given to excessively emotional attitudes, but I am persuaded that the underlying reasons for the decision of the group as a whole were, as Bronsart testified, in substance, that they had received no satisfaction from their discussions with Boreen and felt it useless from their standpoint to return to work "until we can get something concrete"; and that they wished to take some time to think about their future work plans, and try to discuss the matter with "the head office in Bloomfield" before reaching a decision. This testimony is corroborated by the fact, as will presently appear in greater detail, that Murphy and Florez spoke to Geyer by long distance telephone several hours later. Upon their arrival in the parking lot, Murphy or Bronsart,or Florez (or all three) told Vander Heide, in substance, that they and the women would not return to work, and Florez, whose coat was in the plant, asked Vander Heide to fetch it. The three women dispersed to their respective cars and went home, while Murphy, Bronsart, and Florez waited for the latter's coat. ' Various of the employees testified that they could not recall whether a time limit was set. According to Vander Heide and Boreen, the latter specified the hour limitation. In view of the protracted absence of the previous day, it is quite plausible that Boreen would prescribe the limit, although one is led to wonder why he did not make it 45 minutes, the customary lunch period In any case, the results in this proceeding are the same whether or not he prescribed any limitation. 34 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Vander Heide entered the office and informed Boreen of Florez' request . Boreen asked Vander Heide whether the other employees were "going to come in," and Vander Heide replied that "they are not coming back." Boreen thereupon in- structed Vander Heide to ask Florez for a key to the premises in the latter's pos- session. Vander Heide brought Florez his coat and secured the key. Florez, Murphy, and Bronsart thereupon left the area and went to a motel to spend the night and telephone Geyer. Florez reached Geyer by telephone at the latter's home in Montclair, New Jersey, about 8:30 p.m. (11:30 p.m. in Montclair), and told Geyer "that the situation out here in Fullerton was such that we could not longer . stay on"; and requested Geyer "to come out . to look into it." Geyer asked for specifics, at which point Florez "got excited" and Murphy "took the telephone over." Murphy identified himself to Geyer, and the latter asked Murphy what was "going on at the Fullerton plant." Murphy replied that he "could not give any specific details," but that "the situation was such that [he] felt that it required his [Geyer's] presence." Geyer again asked for details, and Murphy stated that he preferred not to give them "for fear of running the risk of jeopardizing , or misrepre- senting the situation." Geyer said that he could not come out immediately because he had some meetings scheduled the following day; and, stating that continued opera- tion of the branch was important to him, he asked Murphy whether the latter and the other employees "would not go back." Murphy said that he could not speak for the others; and Geyer, promising that there "would be no reprisals, and that the company and he would look upon them [the employees] favorably," asked Murphy to inquire of the others "if they would be willing to go back to work" until Geyer could come to Fullerton. Murphy promised to make the inquiry and to give Geyer an answer by telephone in 45 minutes. Florez then telephoned Shibla and informed her of Geyer's request and assurance. Shibla said that she would secure the views of Bushay and Weber and then call Florez. Later that night, she telephoned Florez at the motel and told him that "under the existing conditions we were afraid to go back, because we just did not know what was going on," and "could not go back as long as Mr. Boreen , Mr. Fleck [a sales- man] and Mr. Ledbetter were there." (According to Shibla, she was "physically" afraid of Boreen. The record does not establish whether this was in any way justified.) Thereafter, over a period of several hours, Florez tried a number of times to reach Geyer by telephone at the latter's Montclair home, calling as late as about 2 a.m., New Jersey time, but could get no answer . Florez and his companions then de- cided to wire Geyer, and Florez sent him a telegram that night, addressed to the Bloomfield office, stating, in substance , that he had done as Geyer had requested, and that the "answer [was] positively no." Early the next day, September 18, soon after his arrival at the plant, Boreen tele- phoned the Bloomfield office to talk to Geyer , but as the latter was absent, he spoke to the Company's personnel manager, George Sterris, and asked him if he had "any inkling what was taking place out here." Sterris replied that Geyer "had informed him that a group of employees had called him [Geyer], and that he [Sterris , appar- ently] knew there was a situation out here." Sterris said that Geyer would call Boreen later. About 8 o'clock that morning ( 11 a.m. in Bloomfield ), not having had a response to the wire, Florez endeavored to reach Geyer at the Bloomfield office by telephone; was told that Geyer was not in; was connected with Sterris ; and then turned the phone over to Murphy. The latter asked Sterris whether he was "aware of what was going on at the Fullerton plant," and Sterris replied that he had spoken to Boreen and "was aware of something," but wished details since Boreen had "not given him too much information." As with Geyer, Murphy said that he did not feel free to do so. In reply to a query by Sterris why the matter had not previously been brought to his attention, Murphy said that "we were somewhat afraid to do so, and . . . felt that it should be handled through the proper channels." After some repetition of matters previously covered in the conversation, Sterris said that Geyer was occupied with a luncheon but would attend to the situation as soon as he could; and Murphy said that "we would be at the motel." About a half later, Florez called Sterris again and gave him the phone and room number where he and his companions could be reached at the motel. That morning, also, shortly after 8 o'clock, Shibla, Bushay, and Weber came to the Fullerton plant together and, as Boreen testified , asked for their "personal belong- ings." Boreen, who had previously that morning collected various belongings of each SCIENTIFIC GLASS APPARATUS CO., INC. 35 woman, and had placed them in an envelope identified with her name, gave them their respective envelopes.5 Taking their belongings, the three women , in accordance with prior arrangements they had made with Florez and his companions , proceeded to the motel for a meet- ing with the three men , arriving there shortly after Murphy's talk with Sterris. The women reported what had taken place at the plant, also telling the men that upon their arrival there they had found the plant entrance locked. ( Boreen had admitted them upon their knock.) The six decided at the motel to drive to the Union's headquarters to talk to repre- sentatives of the organization, and, on the way, stopped briefly in front of the Com- pany's plant to see whether its street door was locked. Florez left the car to look at the door. Finding it ajar, neither he nor any of the others entered , but proceeded instead to the Union's headquarters .6 About 10 or 10:30 a.m . Florez telephoned Boreen from the Union 's office and in- quired about the job status of Murphy, Bronsart, and himself, and Boreen replied that they had "walked off" and had "quit." Florez said that they had had "per- mission to leave" (an allusion, apparently, to the protracted absence the previous afternoon), and that Boreen was aware of that . Boreen denied that such permission had been given, asserting that he had allowed 1 hour for the lunch period; that "you walked off"; and that "you are through ." Florez stated that he did not recall that any time limit had been set, and after some repetitive remarks, the discussion ended 7 On the morning of September 19, the six came to the office of a Los Angeles law firm that has had occasion to perform services for the Union , and conferred there with an economist, Irving Helbling, who is employed by the firm . The six had not 5 Shibla pictures Boreen as meeting the women at the entrance to the "general office" with their belongings and extending the envelopes to them. The matter is of no moment, but I think it more likely that the women, as Boreen testified, asked for their belongings, and that he then gave them the envelopes. Bushay testified that she and the other women went to the office to pick up their belongings, but Shibla gave equivocal testimony as to the rea- son for her visit, stating that she "firmly had the belief . . . that Mr. Geyer or some of the representatives of the company [from the East, according to the sense of her testimony] would be there to talk to us " But she undoubtedly knew that Geyei was in New Jersey the night before, and how she could "firmly believe" that either Geyer or another repre- sentative of the Company would come to Fullerton so soon after does not plausibly appear 6 The reason for the interest in the door does not appear Perhaps the group wished to find out if they had succeeded in shutting down the plant by their absence from work If that is so , the action tends to support the General Counsel's position that the cessation of work by the group was a strike. The results here do not hinge on their purpose in check- ing the door , and I make no finding as to the purpose. 7 From Boreen's account of the conversation , he appears to have construed Florez' job status inquiry as a request for reemployment . I think it unlikely that Florez made such a request Murphy had spoken to Sterris only a short time before and had been told that Gever would look into the Fullerton situation , and it is evident that the group was await- ing further word about the matter . In that context , it does not plausibly appear that Florez would apply for reemployment at that point. While Florez did not state the pur- pose of his inquiry in his testimony , it is reasonable to believe that he wished a clarifica- tion of the job status of Murphy, Bronsart, and himself from Boreeu because the women had reported that upon their arrival at the plant they had found that Boreen had previ- ously collected their personal belongings and placed them in earmarked envelopes-an action signifying that the women no longer worked there . I also think it unlikely that Florez, as Boreen testified , upon being told that the employees had quit, remarked, "In other words, you have fired us?" It will be noted that the query whether the employees had been "fired" is not quite responsive to Boreen's immediately preceding statement that they had quit In making findings as to the course of the conversation, I have taken into account the fact that Florez quotes himself, in effect, as telling Boreen that the latter had given permission for the employees' protracted absence on September 17. Although Boreen, as I have found , did place a limitation on that day's lunch period , it may be that Florez did not hear him or misunderstood him and read into Boreen' s condonation of the protracted absence of September 16, and the extensive use of working time for the grievance discussions, an acquiescence in the absence of September 17. Whether or not that is so, I am persuaded, for the reasons stated, that Florez' account of the telephone conversation is closer to the facts than Boreen's, and have based findings as to the discussion on Florez' relevant testimony. 36 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD heard from Geyer, and they had a discussion of their situation with Helbling. He canvassed with them what the Union would do if it represented them; suggested that they offer to return to work; and telephoned Boreen on their behalf. Identifying himself to Boreen, he told the latter that the six had come to his office with a view to having a charge filed with the Board on their behalf; and that they wished to return to work, and were "ready and willing" to do so "that day or the first available time." Boreen replied that he could not reemploy them because they had quit. After some additional talk of no significance here, Helbling stated that he would proceed to file the charge, and with that the conversation ended .8 None of the six has returned to work since the telephone conversation of Septem- ber 19, nor has the Company offered any of them reinstatement since then. B. Discussion of the issues; concluding findings The major question here is whether the Respondent has unlawfully denied em- ployment to Murphy, Bronsart, Weber, Bushay, and Shibla. (It may be assumed that Florez is not included in the complaint's allegations of discrimination because he was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.) The General Counsel main- tains that the five employees went on "strike" on the afternoon of September 17, and were discharged and subsequently denied reinstatement because they engaged in activities protected by the Act. The Respondent, on the other hand, denying any discriminatory motive, contends that they quit. In its brief, the Respondent, stressing the amount of time Boreen spent in discussing the employees' grievances, views what it terms his "patience and tolerance" as negat- ing the existence of a discriminatory attitude. Boreen was no doubt unusually per- missive in allowing much of the working time of himself and almost the entire staff over a period of 11/2 days to be used in fruitless discussion, not to mention his failure to reprimand Florez and his five lunch companions of September 16 for absenting themselves from work, without leave, for some 2 or 3 hours that day. However, in the perspective of the whole record, one could argue, with at least equal logic, that the underlying aim of the "patience and tolerance" was to hold the grievances, which included criticisms of Boreen's management, to the level of local discussion in the plant, with a view to adjustment or, possibly, dissipation of the complaints with the passage of time, without involvement of Boreen's superiors in Bloomfield Signifi- cantly, in that connection, he took a coercive stance as soon as he learned that the employees had sought representation advice from a union, in effect telling them that the management in Bloomfield would not tolerate their union activity, and threaten- ing them with discharge because of it. No doubt the five employees and Florez-especially the latter-engaged in odd behavior also. One is hard put to it to understand why Florez should have per- sisted in trying to reach Geyer by long distance telephone as late as 2 a.m., Geyer's time. Nor can one perceive any moral justification, putting aside the employees' legal right to abstain from work in support of their economic alms, for their greatly excessive "lunch periods" on September 16 and 17, even if it be assumed that some, at least, did not hear Boreen impose any time limitation on the second day (after all, the regular period was 45 minutes), and inferred from the permissive attitude dis- played by Boreen during the extended discussions that he would react similarly to the absences (as, in fact, he did to that of September 16). Be that as it may, the Respondent denies that it discharged the employees, whether for execessive absence or any other reason, asserting, instead, that they quit, and it is thus actually not a material issue in this case whether the absence on September 17 prior to the decision not to enter the plant was a concerted activity protected by Section 7 of the Act (as the General Counsel argues in his brief). To that, one may add that the rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 are not confined to the apt and the reasonable, and with that in mind, one may proceed to a consideration of the material issue whether by withholding their services following the meeting at Bushay's house, the five employees engaged in a strike, a concerted activity protected by Section 7, and were, for that reason or their union activity, or for both reasons, denied employment by the Company; or whether they quit their jobs. In that regard, the fact that one or more of Vander Heide's companions told him on the afternoon of September 17 that they would not return to work, or that he conveyed that information to Boreen, by no means establishes the Respondent's posi- 8 There is no significant conflict between Helbling's and Boreen's respective accounts of the conversation. I have based findings, however, on that of Helbling because it appears to me to be more credibly detailed than Boreen's For example, it is quite likely that Helbling alluded to the plan to file a charge, yet Boreen makes no reference to the matter. SCIENTIFIC GLASS APPARATUS CO., INC. 37 tion. According to Vander Heide at one point, by the way, the women said nothing on the subject,9 but putting that aside, to regard what one or another of the em- ployees told Vander Heide as definitive of their intentions, and of what they actu- ally did, is to ignore major features of the record. Whether because of limited powers of communication (a particular handicap, perhaps, in talking to Vander Heide because English is not his native tongue and he has difficulty with it), or for some other reason, it is evident that neither Florez nor any of the others made Vander Heide fully privy to their intentions . Indeed, these were somewhat inchoate at the time, involving a plan to communicate directly with the Bloomfield office, with what- ever uncertainty in results such a plan would entail. The nature of the employees' action in withholding their services is best deter- mined by a consideration of the sequence of events. As matters stood on the after- noon of September 17, the grievance discussions with Boreen had been fruitless; he had rejected repeated requests by them that he ask Geyer to come to Fullerton; he had, on the previous day, voiced a threat of discharge for union activity to Florez and those associated with him; and by the time the group in question returned to the plant parking lot from Bushay's home, they felt that it was useless to return to work until they could "get something concrete," and decided not to enter the plant pend- ing an effort by them "to make contact with the head office in Bloomfield." Clearly, this was not a decision to sever the employment relation; on the contrary, it was a decision to try to improve it by withholding services and attempting to secure the intervention of the Bloomfield management. In short, it was a decision to strike, however the matter was phrased to Vander Heide. Boreen, to be sure, had good reason to conclude from what Vander Heide told him that Florez and the other five had quit, but, actually, the top management of the Company, in the person of Geyer, was put on notice but a few hours later that such was not the case, albeit Florez told Geyer before transferring the phone to Murphy that the Fullerton "situation . was such that we could not longer .. . stay on." This, it should be borne in mind, was coupled to requests, first by Florez and then by Murphy, that Geyer come to Fullerton, Murphy telling Geyer "that the situation was such that I felt that it required his presence." These statements, taken together, were but another way of telling Geyer that the employees would not re- turn to work unless and until he came out to Fullerton and attended to the "situa- tion" there; and amounted, by clear implication, to a position that the employees would return to work if Geyer did so. Significantly, too, there is nothing in Geyer's remarks to indicate that be regarded the employees as having permanently severed their ties with the Company. His emphasis, rather, was on continuity of operations by the employees, with assurances that there would be no reprisals against them. This approach is a familiar feature of negotiations to end a strike, and, in essence, what the employees and Geyer were doing was engaging in negotiations, the former seeking Geyer's personal intervention in the affairs of the Fullerton plant as a means of resolving their grievances, and Geyer attempting to persuade them to resume their work and remain at it until he had had an opportunity to look into the situation. Such negotiations were, by implication, an affirmation of a continuing employment relationship rather than a recognition of its end. Nor did the relationship end with the "positively no" of the wire, for the telegram was but a part of the negotiations. Geyer had requested Murphy to ask the other employees if they would return to work until he could come to Fullerton; Murphy had promised to do so and to give Geyer an answer; and the wire was the reply. Read in the light of the prior discussion, what it said, in effect, was that the em- ployees would not resume work pending Geyer's arrival, a position consistent with a conclusion that the employees were on strike. The fact is that neither the employees nor the Bloomfield management regarded the telegram as the end of the affair, as events on the morning of September 18 make clear. Florez and his companions at the motel were expecting a reply to the wire, and not receiving one, called the Bloomfield office to verify its receipt. The plain implication of the call, and of Murphy's conversation with Sterns, is that the em- ployees were hopeful that the wire would bring a reply from Geyer that he would come to Fullerton. In fact, Sterns assured Murphy that Geyer would "handle or see to the situation as soon as" he could; and Florez went so far as to call Sterns again a half hour later to give the latter his room and telephone number at the motel, obvi- 6 Vander Heide, who has some difficulty with English, contradicted himself, testifying initially that Bushay and Weber said that they would no longer work for the Company, but stating later that "the women say nothing " 38 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ously doing so to avoid a failure of communication and to facilitate early attention by Geyer to their problems. These telephone discussions are no portrayal of a severed employment relationship, but, rather, of a continuing one. That image is not changed by the fact that the women came to the plant for their personal belongings that morning. This, like other facts in the case, should be ex- amined in the light of the total record, for its meaning can be one thing when con- sidered in isolation and another when viewed in the context of other facts and cir- cumstances. The fact that Weber came for her eyeglasses illustrates the point, for, obviously, a person may have as much need for such an article in the status of a striker as in any other. Shibla and Bushay came, respectively, for a secretarial handbook and a lunch kit, articles that could prove useful to a person in need of work, whether because of a strike (especially a protracted one) or joblessness be- cause of resignation from a position. Moreover, it is well to bear in mind that the employees had good reason to fear discharge for union activity at Boreen's hands since he had threatened them with such dismissal. Against that background, the action of the women in calling for their things is as consistent with a conclusion that they were on strike and feared discharge because of it as with an inference that they came for their belongings because they had quit. Significantly, too, after collecting their belongings, the women went with Murphy, Bronsart, and Florez to the Union's office, a fact which suggests a continuing interest in their employment status.1° It would be a mistake, also, to base a conclusion that the women had quit on the fact that when Florez called Boreen on the morning of September 18 he inquired only about the job status of Murphy, Bronsart, and himself. He gave no reason in his testimony for thus limiting his inquiry, but it is not unlikely that he did so because the women had found upon arrival at the plant earlier that morning that Boreen had collected their belongings, an action that would reasonably induce a belief (whether mistaken or not is beside the point) that Boreen had discharged the women. Such a belief would be particularly warranted in the light of Boreen's prior remarks to the effect that the employees were subject to discharge for engaging in union activity, and it is little wonder that Florez called to inquire about the job status of the men. In evaluating the purpose of the women in calling for their belongings, it is im- portant to bear in mind that they, like the three men, decided not to enter the plant upon their return from Bushay's home, in furtherance of the demands they had made upon Boreen; that Murphy and Florez spoke for the women, as well as for them- selves and Bronsart, in their dealings with Geyer and Sterris; and that the course Murphy and Florez took with the Bloomfield management evidences a continuing interest by all the employees in their jobs, and an aim to improve them from their standpoint. Weighing the whole record, I find that the employees in question here decided not to return to work on the afternoon of September 17, and thereafter withheld their services, in order to "get something concrete" from the Company in response to their grievances, and as a means of inducing Geyer to come to Fullerton to investigate their grievances; that by thus withholding their services, the employees did not sever their employment relationship with the Company, but engaged in a strike for economic ends; and that the strike was an activity protected by Section 7 of the Act." 10 Shibla's statement to Florez on the night of September 17 that the women would not return to work so long as Boreen, Ledbetter, and Fleck worked at the plant did not mean that the women had quit. On the contrary, this position (which, by the way, was not communicated to the management, as is evident from the conversations Murphy and Florez had with Geyer and Sterris) evidences a continuing interest by the women in their jobs, for the statement was another way of saying that the women would resume work upon compliance with the condition that Boreen, Ledbetter, and Fleck be removed. The reason for the objection to Ledbetter and Fleck does not appear, but the position regarding Boreen is understandable from the employees' standpoint if one bears in mind that at least some of the grievances included criticism of Boreen's handling of terms and conditions of employ- ment, and that he had threatened the employees with discharge for engaging in union activity 311 am not in accord with a position taken by the Respondent in its brief that the "de- mand" that Geyer come to Fullerton "is unlawful and does not fall within protected con- certed activities under the Act." The request was an implementation of the employees' efforts to achieve concrete results from their grievances, and it was no more unlawful or unprotected to strike in support of the "demand" than in support of the grievances. Nor do I agree with a claim by the Respondent that the employees "demanded" that Boreen be "terminated as a condition for their going back to work." ShIbla made such a statement SCIENTIFIC GLASS APPARATUS CO., INC. 39 The Respondent makes no claim that it replaced the five employees under con- sideration here prior to their offer, through Helbling, to return to work, and it is evi- dent, and I find, that up to that point no replacements had been hired. Thus under well-established doctrine, even if it be assumed that Boreen's threat was not a causa- tive factor in the strike, and the activity was an economic, and not an unfair labor practice, strike, the employees were entitled, as a result of Helbling's offer, to re- instatement to their respective former, or substantially equivalent, positions, and the Company's refusal to reinstate them was an abridgement of their Section 7 rights and violative of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.12 But, in addition, the evidence leads me to conclude that the Company had an anti- union motive for the refusal to reinstate the employees. There was good warrant for a belief by Boreen on the afternoon of September 17, following Vander Heide's re- turn to the plant, that Florez and the others had quit, for they did not enter the plant, and Vander Heide as much as told Boreen that they had quit. But the fact is that Boreen was mistaken in his belief, and that the Company was in effect put on notice but a few hours later, as a result of the conversation between Murphy and Geyer, that the employees had a continuing interest in their jobs and were withholding their services in order to induce Geyer to come to Fullerton. Boreen, it will be recalled, spoke to Sterris early the following morning, and Sterris told him that he had heard from Geyer that "a group of employees had called him." It is reasonable to believe that Sterris told Boreen what the employees were seeking, but whether that is so or not, and whatever Boreen believed as to the status of the employees up to the point when Florez called him on the morning of September 18, the evidence establishes that Florez told him on that occasion, in substance, that the employees had not quit. In the light of Boreen's knowledge that the employees had spoken to Geyer the night before, and of Florez' denial, one would think that Boreen would, at the very least, entertain some doubt that the employees had abandoned their jobs; yet he persisted in that position with Helbling, refusing to reinstate them on the ground that they had quit. Thus the question arises why the Company should take a position so far removed from Geyer's efforts on the night of September 17 to persuade the employees to re- sume work pending his arrival; and from Sterris' assurance to Murphy on the morn- ing of September 18 (the very morning Boreen spoke to Sterris, although the record does not establish which conversation came first) that Geyer would look into the situation as soon as he could. The answer is supplied by reasonable inference from the whole record. There is good reason to believe that unionization of the Fullerton employees was a matter of much concern to the Company. Boreen said as much when he reacted to the news that the employees had sought representation advice from a union with remarks to the effect that the Company would not tolerate union activity, and that the employees were subject to discharge because of it. Geyer, it is clear, did not know of the activity at the time he spoke to Murphy and Florez on the night of September 17, for, as is evident from the tenor of Boreen's telephone conversation with Sterris, Boreen did not communicate with the Bloomfield management regarding any problem with the Fullerton employees until he put in a call for Geyer, and spoke to Sterris, on the morn- ing of September 18. To be sure, there is no evidence that Boreen told either Sterris to Floret , but it is evident from the discussions Murphy and Florez had with Geyer and Sterris that no such demand was made of the management . Plainly, a good case can be made for the view that a concerted demand for dismissal of a supervisor who threatened employees with discharge for union activity is protected by Section 7, but I see no need to pass on the matter as such a demand was not made , albeit the three women decided at one point or another not to return to work so long as Boreen and the two salesmen were employed at the Fullerton branch In that connection , I note that Joanna Cotton Mills Co v. N.L R B., 176 F 2d 749 (C.A. 4), cited by the Respondent, is distinguishable on its facts. Basically, what the court held was that it was not unlawful to discharge an em- ployee for circulating among other employees a petition demanding the dismissal of a supervisor, since the petition was rooted in personal resentment of the supervisor and was thus not for the "mutual aid or protection of employees " Here, in contrast , apart from the fact that the Company claims it did not discharge the employees , the basic aim of the latter was to secure improvement in their terms and conditions of employment , and the strike was clearly intended for their "mutual aid or protection ," and was thus the exercise of a right guaranteed by Section 7. 12 N L R B. v. Mackay Radio d Tclepraph Co , 304 U S. 333. 40 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD or Geyer (who returned his call later on the morning of September 18) 13 that the employees had shown an interest in union representation, but there is a significant contrast between Geyer's efforts on the night of September 17 to persuade the em- ployees to return to work and the position Boreen took, following his conversation with Sterris, first with Florez, notwithstanding the latter's denial that the employees had quit, and then, on the following day, with Helbling. Significantly enough, as of the time the employees went to Helbling's office, they had not heard from Geyer (nor, so far as appears, have they done so since then), despite Sterris' assurance to Murphy that Geyer would "handle or see to the situation " as soon as he could, in a context that reasonably led the employees to believe that Geyer would soon com- municate with them at the motel. The sum of the matter is that the evidence warrants an inference that at some point between Geyer's talk with Murphy on the night of September 17 and the rejection of Helbling's' offer on the morning of September 19, the Company, notwithstanding the clear indications given to Geyer and Sterris by the employees of their continuing in- terest in their jobs, decided to take the position that the employees had abandoned their jobs, to that end seizing upon the fact that the employees had absented them- selves from work; and that it did so as a means of terminating the employees in ques- tion because they had manifested an interest in union representation by seeking advice about it from a labor organization. Boreen's rejection of Helbling's request for the employees' reinstatement was as much as to discharge them because they had engaged in a strike and had evinced an interest in union representation. For the reasons stated, I find that by discharging, and refusing to reinstate, Gary C. Bronsart, John R. Murphy, Mary Weber, Edith Shibla, and Esther Bushay, the Com- pany discriminated against them to discourage membership in a labor organization, thus violating Section 8(a) (3) of the Act; and interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) of the statute.14 I also find that the Company abridged Section 7 rights of the employees, thereby violating Section 8(a)(1), as a result of Boreen's remarks on September 16 to the effect that the Company would not toler- ate union activity by the employees and that they were subject to discharge for engaging in it. IV. THE ' EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con- nection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. As it has been found that the Company discharged, and refused to reinstate, Gary C. Bronsart, John R. Murphy, Mary Weber, Edith Shibla, and Esther Bushay on September 19, 1963, in violation of Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act, I shall recom- mend that the Company offer each such individual immediate and full reinstatement is According to Boreen, Geyer called him about 10.30 or 11 a.m. Pacific coast time, and asked "what the situation was," and Boreen told him of "six employees walking out, leav- ing and quitting," and that he "was hiring new people to replace them." To this, Boreen testified, Geyer's reply was that Boreen should "keep the business going," and that he would "be out later next month." Thus it would appear from Boreen's testimony that he gave Geyer no details of the grievances and said nothing about the employees' interest in union representation; and that Geyer, in turn, said nothing about his conversation with Murphy and Florez the night before One may doubt, to say the least, that the conversa- tion was so limited. In the nature of things, it is impossible to verify the accuracy of Boreen's account of his private conversation with Geyer through any objective evidence. 14 Contrary to the Respondent in its brief, it matters not that the employees did not identify the labor organization by name in informing Boreen of their activity, nor is it of any moment that Helbling did not mention the organization to Boreen, or say that he rep- resented it, in expressing the employees' offer to return to work. I note, also, that in view of the conclusions reached, I deem it unnecessary to decide whether Boreen's threat of reprisal was a factor in the strike, making it an unfair labor practice strike, as well as one for economic ends. SCIENTIFIC GLASS APPARATUS CO., INC. 41 to his (or her) former, or a substantially equivalent, position,15 without prejudice to his (or her) seniority and other rights and privileges, and make him (or her) whole for any loss of pay he (or she) may have suffered by reason of his (or her) discharge by payment to such individual of a sum of money equal to the amount of wages such individual would have earned, but for the said discharge, between the date of the discharge and the date of a proper offer of reinstatement to such person, as aforesaid, together with interest thereon, as provided below; and that the said loss of pay, plus interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum, be computed in accordance with the formula and method prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716, to which the parties hereto are expressly referred. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in this proceeding, I make the following. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Company is, and has been at all material times, an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. 2. Each of the five individuals against whom the Company discriminated, as found above, has been, at all material times, an employee of the said Company within the meaning of said Section 2(3) of the Act. 3. The Union is, and has been at all material times, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 4. By discharging, and refusing to reinstate, the five employees, as found above, the Company has engaged in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, as found above, the Company has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this proceeding, I recommend that Scientific Glass Apparatus Co., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership of any of the employees of its business establish- ment at Fullerton, California, in Sales Drivers, Food Processors, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 952, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, or any other labor organization, by dis- charging, or otherwise denying employment to, any such employees, or in any other manner discriminating against any such employees in regard to hire, tenure of em- ployment, or any term or condition of employment, except as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. (b) In any manner threatening or otherwise informing any of its employees of its establishment in Fullerton, California, that any of them will be discharged, or are subject to discharge, if they join, or engage in any activity in, with, or or behalf of, any labor organization. (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees of its establishment in Fullerton, California, in the right to self-organization; to form, join, or assist any labor organization; to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing; to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection; or to refrain from any or all such activi- ties, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.16 16In accordance with the Board 's past interpretation , the expression "former, or a sub- stantially equivalent, position" is intended to mean "former position wherever possible, but if such position is no longer in existence , then to a substantially equivalent position " The Chase National Bank of the City of New Yoik, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch, 65 NLRB 827 36 The scope of the restraints set forth above is justified , I find , by the nature and extent of the violations found. See N.LR.B. v. Entwistle Mfg Co., 120 F. 2d 532 (CA. 4) ; May Department Stores v. N L.R.B., 326 U.S 376; and Bethlehem Steel Company v N.L R B., 120 F. 2d 641 (C.A.D.C.). 42 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. Take the following affirmative action which, it is found, it will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Gary C. Bronsart, John R. Murphy, Mary Weber, Edith Shibla, and Esther Bushay immediate and full reinstatement to their respective former, or sub- stantially equivalent, positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and make each of them whole in the manner and according to the method set forth in section V, above, entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve until compliance with any order for reinstatement or backpay made by the National Labor Relations Board in this proceeding is effectuated, and make available to the said Board and its agents, upon request, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records relevant to a determination of the amount of backpay due, and to reinstatement and related rights provided in any such order. (c) Post in conspicuous places at its place of business in Fullerton, California, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted there, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 21 of the National Labor Relations Board, shall, after being signed by a duly authorized representative of the Company, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter in such conspicuous places. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the said Company to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.17 (d) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from receipt of this decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply therewith.18 It is further recommended that, unless on or before 20 days from the date of its receipt of this decision the Respondent notify the said Regional Director that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondent to take the action aforesaid. 17 In the event that this Recommended Order Is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the said notice. In the additional event that the Board's Order is 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 " 18 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, paragraph 2(d) thereof thereof 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 A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership of any of our employees of our business establishment at Fullerton, California, in Sales Drivers, Food Processors, Ware- housemen & Helpers, Local 952, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, or in any other labor organization, by discharging, or otherwise denying employment to, any such employees, or in any other manner discriminating against any such em- ployees in regard to hire, tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment, except as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the said Act. WE WILL NOT in any manner threaten or otherwise inform any of our em- ployees of our establishment in Fullerton, California, that any of them will be discharged, or are subject to discharge, if they join, or engage in any activity in, with, or on behalf of, any labor organization WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees of our establishment in Fullerton, California, in the right to self-organization; to form, join, or assist in any labor organization; to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing; to engage in 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 organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC. 43 WE WILL offer Gary C. Bronsart, John R. Murphy, Mary Weber, Edith Shibla, and Esther Bushay immediate and full reinstatement to their respective former, or substantially equivalent, positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and reimburse them for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the fact that we discriminated against them. SCIENTIFIC GLASS APPARATUS Co., INC., Employer. Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their 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. Information regarding provisions of this notice or compliance with its terms may be secured from the Regional Office of the National Labor Relations Board, 849 South Broadway, Los Angeles, California, Telephone No. 688-5204. Roadway Express, Inc. and Charles Dalton Local 299, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Ind. and Charles Dalton. Cases Nos. 7-CA-4429 and 7-CB-1142. December 14, 1964 DECISION AND ORDER On April 8, 1964, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued his De- cision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondents had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in his attached Decision. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision with a supporting brief, and both Respondents filed briefs in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem- bers Leedom and Jenkins]. 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 Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner only to the extent that they are consistent herewith. Respondent Union, Local 299, International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Ind., rep- resents employees at the Taylor, Michigan, facility operated by Re- 150 NLRB No. 14.