Pioneer Astro Metallics, Inc.

468 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL offer to Ronald King immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and will make him whole for any loss of earnings suffered as a result of the discrimination against him. All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the above-named or any other labor organization. SIDLES COMPANY, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) NOTE.-In the event the above-named employee is presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States we will notify him of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, 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. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provi- sions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1200 Rialto Building, 906 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri, Telephone No. Baltimore 1-7000, Extension 731. Pioneer Astro Metallics, Inc. and United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 31-CA-46 and 31-CA-51. December 30, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER On November 4, 1965, Trial Examiner James R. Hemingway issued his Decision in the above-entitled case, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 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. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning 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 Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. [The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.] 156 NLRB No. 54. PIONEER ASTRO METALLICS, INC. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION 469 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S .C. Sec. 151, et seq. On February 25, 1965, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union , filed a charge in Case No . 21-CA- 6509 against Pioneer Astro Metallics, Inc., the Respondent herein, alleging viola- tions of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. On March 8, 1965, the Union in Case No. 21-CA-6545 filed another charge against the Respondent, alleging viola- tions of Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act. Upon such charges a complaint was issued on May 4, 1965, and the Respondent filed an answer on May 14, 1965. The complaint alleges a refusal to bargain in good faith based on a number of enumerated grounds, and alleges that the Respondent discharged George Olson because he joined or assisted the Union or engaged in other union activity or con- certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro- tection. The complaint also contained a few allegations of independent violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In substance , the answer denies the commission of the unfair labor practices and alleges that Olson was terminated for producing excessive scrap that cost the Respondent several thousand dollars. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Los Angeles , California, on July 7 and 8, 1965, before Trial Examiner James R. Hemingway . At the close of the hearing the parties waived oral argument but requested time within which to file briefs. A date was fixed , and thereafter briefs were received from the General Counsel and the Respondent. From my observation of the witnesses , and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that Respondent at all times material herein has been, and is , engaged at its place of business located in Haw- thorne, California, in the manufacture of machining components and subassem- blies, and, during its normal course of business , Respondent at its Hawthorne, Cali- fornia, plant annually purchases and receives materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers located outside the State of California . Respondent's answer admits and I find that at all times material herein the Respondent has been and is engaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of Respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The refusal to bargain 1. The appropriate unit The complaint alleges that all Respondent 's production and maintenance employ- ees employed at its Hawthorne , California, plant, including shipping and receiving employees, truckdrivers, and warehousemen , excluding all office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, watchmen , and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. The Respondent 's answer takes issue with this allegation claiming that the unit should exclude shipping and receiving employ- ees and working foremen. On October 7, 1964, Respondent executed a consent- election agreement , in which the appropriate bargaining unit was defined as set forth in the complaint. I find that the unit described in the complaint is appro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.1 i No evidence was adduced by Respondent in support of its allegation that shipping and receiving clerks or "working foremen" should be excluded from the unit. 470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. The Union's majority in the appropriate unit Following the execution of the aforementioned consent-election agreement, an election was conducted by agents of the National Labor Relations Board on October 28, 1964, and on November 5, 1964, the Regional Director certified the Union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respects to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. I find that on and after November 5, 1964, the Union was and still is the exclusive representative of the employees in the aforesaid unit within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 3. History of bargaining Following certification of the Union, Henry Rapuano, a staff representative of the Union, on November 12, 1964, wrote a letter to Respondent expressing a desire to negotiate an agreement and requesting information concerning the following matters: 1. Name, seniority date, classification, and rate of pay for each production and maintenance employee. 2. Number of paid holidays now in effect. 3. Amount of current social security program, if any, including the cost and type of benefits. 4. Amount of vacation benefits now being given to the employees, if any. 5. Shift differentials, if any, and other benefits now in effect being given to the employees by your Company. The Respondent received this letter on November 13, 1964, but did not reply thereto. Advised by the Union's bargaining committee that Albert Hinz, a labor relations consultant, who represented the Respondent at the hearing, was in the plant the day before the election, Rapuano, on or about November 20, 1964, telephoned Hinz and asked him if he was working for the Respondent. Hinz said he was.2 Rapuano told Hinz that he had sent a letter to Respondent requesting certain information. Hinz asked if Rapuano had not yet received the information. Rapuano said that he had not. Hinz said that he had told the Respondent to send the Union that information and that he would call the Respondent and see if he could get the Respondent to send the information. Still not having received the information by November 26, 1964, Rapuano telephoned Hinz again and told him that the Union had not yet received the information. Hinz said that he did not know whether or not he was working for the Respondent, because the Respondent had not yet paid him, but he would get in touch with Respondent and see if the information could not be sent to Rapuano. Rapuano next telephoned Hinz on December 7, 1964,3 and again told Hinz that the Union had not received the requested information. Hinz said that he could not understand this and that he would again get in touch with the Respondent to get the information. Rapuano requested Hinz to set a date for a negotiating meeting but Hinz replied that he could not do that until he had talked with the Respondent. Hinz again gave Rapuano to understand that there was some doubt as to whether or not Hinz was retained by the Respondent since they had not paid him. Rapuano told Hinz that if the requested information was not received, he would have the Union file charges with the Board. Hinz said that perhaps that would move the Respondent. Rapuano consulted with James Carbray, an International representative of the Union, about filing a charge. Upon Carbray's advice, Rapuano, on December 9, 1965, wrote to the Respondent reminding it that the Union had not received the 'Hinz did not testify. Findings of the conversations between Rapuano and Hinz are based on Rapuano's undenled testimony. 3 Rapuano Was obliged at times to refer to notes to refresh his recollection of dates and sequence of events at times. Respondent attacks Rapuano's credibility because, on cross-examination, Rapuano testified that he had made the notes which he used to refresh his recollection only a week before the hearing. Rapuano was not asked and did not testify that his notes had been made strictly from memory rather than from data supplied by calendar notations or other records. In any event, he testified that his memory was refreshed by the notes and he appeared to testify from memory after refreshing his recollection. Rapuano's occasional reference to his notes does not, in my opinion, detract from his credibility. PIONEER ASTRO METALLICS, INC. 471 requested information, repeating its request for the information, and requesting a meeting to facilitate negotiations. No reply being received to this letter, Rapuano, a week later, again telephoned Hinz, told him that the Union had not received the requested information, and that Carbray would file charges against the Respondent. The Union filed charges against the Respondent on December 21, 1964.4 Toward the end of December 1964, Respondent compiled the information sought by the Union. The exact date of delivery thereof to the Union is undisclosed. Among other information set out in the one page of information delivered by the Respondent was a list of employees as of December 29, 1964, so it is reasonable to infer that delivery to the Union's office was made thereafter. This information was received by Rapuano, personally, after the first of the year 1965. Upon receipt of the foregoing information, Rapuano telephoned Hinz and acknowl- edged receipt. Hinz asked Rapuano to withdraw the charge which had been filed. Rapuano agreed to drop the charge if a meeting was held. Hinz said that the Respondent was expecting the Respondent's owner (Keppen)5 from Chicago and he could not set any meeting date earlier than January 19, 1965. On that date, Hinz met with Rapuano, Business Agent Rubenstein, and the employ- ees' negotiating committee, composed of George Olson (the alleged discriminatee herein) and Duane Arlt. The union representatives produced a proposed contract and spent several hours reading and explaining its proposed agreement section by section. Hinz asked about wage rates which were not included in the Union's draft agreement. Rapuano said that the Union was proposing the same rates as those at another company (U.S. Beryllium). At Hinz's request, Rapuano furnished a copy of these rates. Hinz may have asked a few other questions but did not take any position on the Union's proposals. In fact Hinz said he had no authority to make concessions or agree to the Union's proposal but he would take their proposals to the Respondent who would make counterproposals or whatever it decided to do. Hinz said he expected to see the Respondent's president the following week. Before the meeting broke up, committee member Olson told Hinz that the employees were also asking the reinstatement of Maurice Brown who had been terminated out of seniority shortly after the Union had been certified and that Brown along with him- self (Olson) had been the ones who had organized the Union. Hinz said he under- stood that the man who had done the organizing had quit. Olson said that was not true and the employees wanted Brown's reinstatement agreed to as part of the contract. About 10 days later, on January 29, 1965, Rapuano telephoned Hinz, who told Rapuano that he had met with President Keppen and with Plant Manager Earl Adams, that Keppen had returned to Chicago (where Respondent or Keppen had another plant) and would get counterproposals together and mail them out by the following Tuesday, February 2, and that he should receive them by February 4. Hinz promised to mail the counterproposals to Rapuano as soon as he, himself, received them. Having received no word from the Respondent, Rapuano, on Monday, Febru- ary 15, 1965, sent the Respondent a letter by certified mail (with a copy to Hinz) stating that the Union had been unable to obtain any information concerning a date for a meeting to continue negotiations and that, if no reply was received by the Union by Friday, February 19, 1965, the Union would file an unfair labor practice charge. On February 18, 1965, Plant Manager Adams telephoned Rapuano and said that he was then with Hinz and that they were preparing some counterproposals to submit to the Union. Rapuano asked Adams when they could meet with him. Adams consulted Hinz, and then told Rapuano that Hinz would meet with him that day. Hinz confirmed this to Rapuano, according to the latter's credited testi- mony, saying that he would come to Rapuano's office that afternoon. Rapuano waited at his office until 5 p.m. that day, but Hinz did not arrive. Adams testified that, within 3 days after the Union had presented its proposals, the Respondent had met and had drawn up a counterproposal on wages, although he was not sure if they were ever drawn up in their final form. Asked if he had directed anyone to present these wage proposals to the Union, Adams answered, "Hinz." To the next question, "You directed Mr. Hinz to present these wage proposals to the Union?" Adams replied, "I don't direct Mr. Hinz. He's pretty much-he's hired and paid by us to handle this problem." Adams also testified that on February 24 he had been "on the telephone" with Carbray and had told Carbray that Hinz would be up that afternoon with the proposal and that Hinz had told him (Adams) that he 4 Carbray dated his signing of the charge December 18, 1964 , a Friday. s Rapuano used the word "owner." Keppen is president of the Respondent. The ex- tent of his financial interest does not appear. 472 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD had met with Carbray. There is no corroboration of this hearsay testimony as to a meeting between Hinz and Carbray and I do not base any finding thereon. I con- clude that Adams apparently was confused in his testimony and was thinking of the telephone call he had made to Rapuano on February 18. On the day after Adams' conversation with Rapuano, February 19, Rapuano telephoned Hinz. Hinz told Rapuano that he would be meeting with the Respond-' ent that afternoon, but he also told Rapuano that he had not yet been paid by the Respondent and until he was paid he was not going to do any work for them. Rapuano gave Hinz the telephone number of the place he expected to be and asked Hinz to telephone him there after his meeting with the Respondent. Hinz did not, however, call Rapuano. A few days later, Rapuano again telephoned Hinz and again Hinz told Rapuano that he was not going to do anything for the Respondent until he was paid. The Union filed a charge of refusal to bargain on February 25, 1965. On March 3 6 Rapuano met with some of the employees, and Rapuano told them of the filing of the charge. The possibility of a strike was discussed but no decision was then reached, the employees deciding to discuss it further among themselves before reaching a decision. On March 4 Manager Adams called Olson to his office to question him about the possibility of a strike. This incident will be related in greater detail in a connection with the account of Olson's discharge, hereinafter, but it is pertinent here to relate that Adams, in his conversation with Olson, expressed animosity toward unions. Among other things, Adams, at this time, told Olson that Hinz had drafted or was drafting a counterproposal and that he wished Olson would so inform the employees in order to forestall the talk of a strike. Except for a call by Rapuano to Hinz on March 5, the day after Adams spoke with Olson, in which Rapuano protested Adams' questioning of Olson and Adams' antiunion expressions, no further contacts appear to have been made between the Respondent and the Union thereafter until May 6, 1965, more than 21/2 months later. During Rapuano's absence from town (attending a negotiating meeting with another company in New York), Hinz telephoned another union representative and arranged a meeting for May 6. At that meeting, Hinz delivered to that representative (Con- way, subdistrict director of the Union) a "Company reply to Union Proposals." This consisted of a 11/3-page list of proposed deletions, changes, or additions to the Union's proposed contract. No reference was made therein to wages. Hinz, at this meeting, apparently agreed to telephone Conway on May 12 but did not do so.? Rapuano returned to Los Angeles from New York for a few days (May 13-17) and while in Los Angeles, Rapuano, on May 17, 1965, wrote the following letter to Hinz: I tried to reach you by phone Friday, May 14th, 1965, but was unsuccessful. I left a message with your Secretary to have you call me at home ME 0-2917 Saturday, May 15, 1965, and received no phone call from you. I again called your office on Monday, May 17th and your Secretary informed me that you were not available. You told Mr. Conway that you would call him on Wednesday, May 12th, 1965. Mr. Conway informed me that you did not call. The Union's sole intent is to have the Company sit down and negotiate an Agreement between Pioneer Astro Metallics and the Steelworkers Union The employees at the plant do have the right under the Federal Law and expect the Union and the Company to sign a labor Agreement on their behalf Please contact Miss Newland at this office so arrangements can be made for a meeting as soon as possible. A copy of this letter was sent to Manager Adams. Rapuano testified that he daily telephoned Newland from New York while he was there to learn if the Respondent had made any effort to reach him. He was informed that it had not. After his d Rapuano gave the date as the day after the filing of the charge. Olson gave the date of the meeting as March 3. Olson's memory of this date appeared clearer than Rapuano's. Conway went to the hospital with a heart attack about May 16. Although at home by the time of the hearing, he was not in condition to return to work and he was not called to testify. He reported to Rapuano his meeting with Hinz and the promised tele- phone call when Rapuano returned to Los Angeles for a few days between May 13 and 17. Although Conway's report to Rapuano was hearsay, it is consistent with the history of Hinz' prior failure to communicate as promised. As stated before, Hinz, himself, did not testify. PIONEER ASTRO METALLICS, INC. 473 return to Los Angeles, Rapuano wrote another letter to Hinz (with a copy to Adams ) on June 3, 1965, stating that he had received no reply to his letter of May 17 and again requesting a date for continuing negotiations . Rapuano received no reply. 4. Concluding findings The sum of the evidence discloses that the Respondent ignored or avoided con- tact with the Union for the better part of the 6 or 7 months in which the Union sought to negotiate with the Respondent . In that time , the Union made at least 8 or 10 telephone calls and wrote 5 letters in an effort to set the negotiating machin- ery in motion . The Respondent wrote no letters in reply and failed to respond even verbally to most of them . Before May 6, 1965, the only times when the Respondent took any initiative at all to communicate with the Union was when it was threatened with unfair labor practice charges. The information sought by the Union in its first letter was not furnished until a week or more after a charge was filed in the latter part of December 1964. When the information was finally furnished , it was delivered with no covering letter. The evidence does not even disclose whether or not it arrived by mail. It is notable that the Respondent consistently abstained from the use of the mail to make written replies to the Union . Although the information which the Union requested in its letter of November 12, 1964, appears to be of a sort that could readily have been produced or reproduced-most of it from a personnel record, or perhaps records, in existence-the Respondent offered no explanation for the delay of more than 6 weeks until after a charge was filed with the Board before supplying the requested information. The Respondent finally agreed to a negotiating meeting to be held on January 19, 1965, but only after requesting a withdrawal of the aforesaid charge and after the Union agreed to withdraw the charge on condition that there be a meeting. The only time before May 6, 1965, that the Respondent took the initiative to make a telephone call was on February 18, 1965, after the Union had written the Respondent threatening to file another charge if no reply was given by February 19. In the February 18 call, Adams promised a counterproposal and an immediate meeting with Hinz, a promise which was not kept. The history of the Respondent's counterproposals also is one of delay and broken promises . Hinz had first indicated on January 29, 1965, that Keppen was going to secure wage rates and prepare counterproposals and that President Keppen would mail them from Chicago by February 2 so that they would be received by Hinz by February 4. Hinz promised to forward them to the Union as soon as he had received them. This promise was not kept, presumably because no counterproposals were prepared. The next mention of counterproposals was in Adams ' telephone call to Rapuano on February 18, 1965. In this conversation no mention was made of counterproposals prepared by President Keppen . Adams claimed that he and Hinz were at that time preparing them. On March 4, 1965, Adams told Olson that the counterproposals were being prepared by Hinz. But counterproposals were not actually given until May 6, months later. No explanation was given for the lengthy delay.8 After the Respondent finally did present counterproposals at a meeting between Hinz and Conway on May 6, 1965 , the Respondent failed thereafter to communicate with the Union or to respond to Rapuano's telephone calls or letters requesting negotiating meetings. A conclusion is warranted on all the evidence , and I find that the Respondent, after undue delay, furnished the information requested by the Union in its letter of November 12, 1964, and eventually presented counterproposals only "for the record" and not with any genuine intent to negotiate an agreement. The Respondent at no time displayed a genuine inclination to negotiate an agreement . On the contrary, it gave every appearance of resorting to evasive and stalling tactics with a fixed inten- tion of avoiding an agreement. Part and parcel of this picture was the lack of any authority vested in Hinz to negotiate a contract . The Respondent's position appears to be that, because a nego- tiated agreement reached with union representatives would be subject to ratification by the union membership so, too, it would not be essential that Hinz have final authority to consummate an agreement . This argument is based on an assumed premise that Hinz had authority to negotiate an agreement which would be subject 8It is noted , however , that the counterproposals were presented on the day after the Respondent and Hinz had received service of a copy of the complaint and notice of hearing. 474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to ratification by the Respondent. The evidence does not bear this out. Hinz acknowledged at the January 19, 1965, meeting that he could not make any con- cessions but could only present the Union's proposals to the Company. The evi- dence indicates that Hinz could not even set a meeting date without first consulting with the Respondent. When, in January 1965, Rapuano asked Hinz to set a date for a meeting, Hinz said he could not do this until he had consulted with the Respondent. As herein related, Adams testified that he did not "direct" Hinz to deliver counterproposals because Hinz was hired to "handle this matter" for the Respondent. This hardly jibes with what Hinz was telling Rapuano and the Union's bargaining committee. On the other hand, it is insufficient to prove that Hinz was authorized to negotiate an agreement. It is not necessary here to define the degree of authority that should be vested in a negotiating representative; it suffices to point out that an employer's good faith is put in serious doubt where the authority granted to his bargaining agent is no more than one to convey proposals of the Union to the Respondent and proposals of the Respondent to the Union, especailly where, as here, all letters from the Union requesting bargaining dates are ignored and where the employer, when pressed for a meeting, makes unkept promises.9 Failure of an employer to give his designated bargaining agent authority to negotiate even a tentative agreement tends to impede the bargaining process, and, when such authority is withheld, it suggests a design to delay and to frustrate attempts of a union to reach an agreement. This I find was the case here, and I find, under all the circumstances, that the withholding of author- ity from Hinz to negotiate an agreement is an indication of bad-faith bargaining on the part of the Respondent. Also demonstrating the Respondent's bad faith is Respondent's apparent intent not to take any initiative or responsibility for carrying on negotiations. Rapuano testified that in every telephone conversation he had with Hinz, the latter had prom- ised to call him but never had. Even after having given counterproposals, the Respondent failed to respond to a single request of the Union thereafter for a nego- tiating meeting. Considenng all the evidence in this case in conjunction with the Respondent's antipathy for unions, as expressed by Adams, I conclude and find that Respondent had a fixed determination from the outset not to perform its statutory duty to bargain in good faith with the certified representative of its employees 10 By failing and totally evading its statutory duty to bargain with the Union, the Respondent has not only refused to bargain within the meaning of the Act but has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise -of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. B. Discrimination 1. Olson's employment and union activity George Olson was hired by the Respondent as a jig borer on May 25, 1964,11 at a rate of $3.30 an hour, later being raised to $3.40. Employees were given grades of A, B, C, along with their job title, with wage rates highest in the A grade. Olson was graded A Sometime in mid- or late February 1965, in a conversation between Olson and Superintendent Kinane, the latter remarked, according to Olson, that he had no complaints about Olson's work. I observed that Kinane attended the hear- ing, but he was not called as a witness to refute Olson's testimony. - Olson was one of the principal organizers of the Union at Respondent's plant and was an observer for the Union in the election that was held on October 28, 1964. Thereafter he was one of the members of the Union's negotiating committee. Every time Rapuano wrote a letter to the Respondent, prior to Olson's discharge, the letter showed on its face that a copy was sent to Olson. In the previous subsection hereof, I have related Olson's statement to Hinz at the only negotiating meeting held during Olson's employ, the one that was held on January 19, 1965. At that time, Olson voiced a demand for reinstatement of Maurice Brown, the inspector who was alleged to have been an organizer for the Union and who was terminated by the Respondent soon after the Union's certification by the Board, allegedly out of seniority. 9 N.L R.B. v. Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO (Fitzgerald Mills Corpora- tion), 313 F. 2d 260 (C.A. 2). 'O Han-Dee Spring & Mfg. Co, Inc, 132 NLRB 1542; Bewley Mills, 111 NLRB 830. "In the list of employees and dates of employment furnished by Respondent to the Union, it appears that of 24 employees in the appropriate unit on December 29, 1964, all but 5 had been hired during the year 1964. The plant was relatively new PIONEER ASTRO METALLICS, INC. 475 It will be remembered that, in February 1965, the Union threatened to file another refusal-to-bargain charge with the Board if the Union did not hear from the Respond- ent before February 19 regarding a meeting, that, although the Respondent tele- phoned the Union on February 18 (the day before the deadline) and agreed to a meeting by its representative, Hinz, with the Union on the afternoon of the same day, Hinz failed to appear for the agreed meeting, that the Union on February 25 filed a charge of refusal to bargain, notice whereof was received by the Respondent on March 1,12 and that on March 3 the employees were notified of the filing of the charge and began to discuss whether or not they should strike. The Respondent became aware of the talk about a strike and, on March 4, 1965, Manager Adams summoned Olson into his office. Adams testified that he selected Olson because Olson was the Union's representative in the plant. Superintendent Kinane was also present when Olson came to Adams' office. Adams asked Olson what the trouble was in the plant. Olson said he knew of no trouble. Adams said he heard there was talk of a strike and asked if there was going to be one. Olson said he would know of it if there were going to be one but that none was scheduled for the shop then or in the near future. After Kinane had been reassured that there was not going to be a strike, he left the room. Adams then asked Olson why he though he needed someone else to do his bargaining for him, that he ought to be intelligent enough to do his own. Adams said that he did not see why the employees or Olson needed anyone to do this sort of thing for him. According to Olson's testimony, Adams said that he did not think anything (meaning, I infer, "well") of unions, that they did not want any- thing but the employees' money, and he testified that Adams had called them "crooks and bums and thieves . . . a bunch of dirty b- and no good s-o-b's." Adams denied using the above-quoted words but testified that he believed he had called them "grafters or leeches or something of that nature." The conflict in testimony as to the epithets is relatively unimportant. By either account, Adams' epithets were deroga- tory. Olson disagreed with Adams' low evaluation of unions saying that he thought unions had done a lot of good. According to Olson's account, Adams said that unions were a good thing 30 years ago but that "now-a-days" they were all corrupt, that there was nothing good about them, that he thought they were outdated and should not be around any more. Adams, himself, testified that he told Olson that as far as he was concerned the Union was just after dues and that unions were of no value in doing the employees of Olson's standing any good. But he testified that he also told Olson that the Union was an advantage to the employee and employer at some places, naming Mattel Toy Company, Harvey Aluminum, and a couple of other (unnamed) companies, and he testified that he told Olson of an experience he had had of losing wages because of a strike. Although neither Olson nor Adams men- tioned it in their testimony, Adams, in his affidavit to the Board, stated that he had asked Olson the reason for the unrest in the plant and that Olson had said "it did not look like" the Respondent was trying to negotiate a contract with the Union. If this had, in fact, been said, that would explain Olson's testimony that Adams told him that he (Adams) and Hinz were drafting some kind of counterproposal to be submit- ted to the Union and that he wished Olson, at breaktime or lunchtime would tell the men so that this talk that was going on in the plant would stop. Olson agreed to do so. On the following morning, March 5, as previously related, Rapuano telephoned Hinz to complain of Adams' questioning of Olson and of Adams' vilification of the Union. That evening, between 4 and 5 p.m., Foreman Koudela called Olson away from his machine, according to Olson (Koudela did not testify), and said, "George, I am going to have to lay you off." Olson asked, "What do you mean, lay me off?" Olson asked if that meant he was terminated. Koudela replied, "I don't know. That's what they told me." Olson asked Koudela if he did not think he should find out. Koudela said he would, and returned in 10 minutes and told Olson that he was being terminated.13 2. Conclusions a. Respondent's explanation of Olson's discharge The Respondent justified Olson's discharge on the alleged ground that Olson had made an excessive amount of scrap. As proof of this, Respondent did not offer 'a Notice of the filing of the charge was sent on Friday, February 26; March 1 was a Monday. 13 Olson testified that at this time Iioudela gave him another paycheck, but be had not mentioned an earlier one in his testimony. 476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the testimony of Olson's foreman, Koudela, or of his superintendent, Kinane, or of any inspector from Respondent's quality control department; it relied on the testimony of Plant Manager Adams and some "discrepant material reports." At the hearing, Adams testified that the decision to discharge Olson was made by the Respondent's president, Keppen, the day of, or the day before, Olson's discharge, after Adams had had a meeting with President Keppen. Because Adams had, on March 30, 1965, executed an affidavit in which he attested to the circumstances of Olson's discharge, because that affidavit was made within a month after Olson's dis- charge, and because it was to some extent at variance with his testimony or the implications of his testimony given at the hearing, I will contrast these accounts of Olson's discharge and the reasons therefor where there is a disparity. In his affi- davit,14 Adams stated that Keppen made the decision to discharge Olson on March 5 (the day of Olson's discharge), that on the morning of March 5 Adams had received a telephone call from Litton ( meaning Litton Industries, a customer), that he had spoken with Chuck Palistrine of that company who informed Adams that he was "rejecting more parts, more housing sets," that Palistrine sent back three of them, that the holes were bored off location and oversized, that this was the operation that Olson performed,'5 that there was no discrepant material report on these three parts, that the only checking done on these parts is by the machine operator, that the three parts rejected were worth $940 apiece,'6 that Respondent was not yet sure they were scrapped, that Respondent's "cost on them was $1500 apiece" (this was unexplained), and that Respondent was trying to salvage them. At the hearing, on direct testimony under examination by Respondent's representative, Adams did not allude to the hous- ing sets allegedly rejected by Litton on March 5. I conclude that the reason he did not do so is because he was unable to establish that Olson was connected with the three parts allegedly mentioned by Palistrine, if, indeed, such parts were mentioned at that time at all. The evidence as a whole leads me to believe that Adams had a tendency to assert as fact things about which he had only an impression from having heard or read something of the facts he was testifying to. Adams gave testimony in respect to five discrepant material reports that bore Olson's name as the operator who worked on the parts described. Contrary to the statement in his affidavit that "the only checking done on these parts is by the machine' operator," Adams testified that it is mandatory under the quality control manual "set up and approved by all major subcontractors and NASA ... and other Government agencies" to make discrepant material reports, that a discrepant part (because of the flow time through the shop) might not be discovered until that particular part gets into final inspection, even though there was a line inspection. From this and other evidence, it is apparent that a part is inspected not merely by the machine operator but by line inspectors and by a final inspection before the part is submitted to the customer . It is understandable, therefore, why Adams did not, in his direct testi- mony, follow the explanation given in his affidavit. There should have been discrepant material reports for any defective parts submitted to Litton. Furthermore, the only discrepant material reports showing submission to Litton related to one part, not three, as alleged in Adams' affidavit. There are in evidence discrepant material reports which show that, despite the discrepancy described therein, the imperfect part is, in some instances, submitted to the customer to determine if it can be used or salvaged. The fact that a discrepant material report is made does not, therefore, mean that scrap has necessarily resulted. It means only that an imperfection exists which may or may not result in scrap. In an attempt to prove that Olson made excessive scrap, the Respondent relied, at the hearing on five discrepant material reports bearing Olson's name along with Adams' unsupported testimony that Olson made excessive scrap. The unsupported general testimony by Adams that Olson made excessive scrap does not persuade me of the truth thereof. As previously stated, I find that Adams tended to make state- ments of fact which were based on insufficient knowledge, but this testimony borders on the reckless. Since the Respondent would be bound to have reports of discrepant material worked on by Olson, the Respondent would not have had to rely upon such a generality. I assume, therefore, that the Respondent preferred to let its case rest mainly upon a generality for lack of other proof. In any event, because I do not 11 The affidavit is a Respondent's exhibit. ss It will be noticed that the "operation that Olson performed" is not the same as saying that the mislocated holes and other work on the rejected parts were , in fact, the work of Olson. 18According to Adams' testimony it was $950 and this would represent the selling price rather than the cost of materials. PIONEER ASTRO METALLICS, INC. 477 credit all of Adams' testimony, particularly that portion which attempted to explain the circumstances of bargaining and the cause of Olson's discharge, I would be reluc- tant to credit his general statement of excessive scrap unsupported by more cogent evidence. In this respect, I note not only the absence of documentary evidence of an excessive amount but also the absence of testimony of those persons who would most likely be familiar with Olson's work-inspectors, the foreman, or even the plant superintendent. I would not expect the plant manager to have first-hand knowledge of the day-to-day work of any employee. He would learn of such employee's work through records or reports of supervisor or inspectors. Looking at the discrepant material reports in evidence bearing Olson's name as the operator, we find that Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, dated January 15, 1965, does not show scrap. It does show that 1 hole (of about 80 bored in the piece involved) was about 5/10,000ths over the tolerance permitted (it was .7508 instead of a high limit of .7503). On this discrepant material report, on the line explaining "disposition," is noted, "Submit to Litton." Respondent's Exhibit No. 2, dated January 27, 1965, apparently refers to the same part, which had been worked on at a later date. It refers to a different discrepancy but is also shown as "submitted to Litton for salvage." Olson testified that he had never been shown either discrepant material report before and that neither one bore his signature, although, contrary to Adams, he testified that it was not customary for the operator to sign or be shown the reports. He was unable to identify the work done as his. The evidence does not disclose who wrote Olson's name on the slips as the operator. The slips bore the name of Schaefer as inspector and of John Koudela, the foreman. Neither was called as a witness.17 On the discrepant material report form is a line for describing "operation causing scrap," which, I deduce, could better have been worded "operation causing discrepancy" because the evidence indicates that some discrepant material is reworked or salvaged. The operator last working on salvage would not necessarily have been the one who caused the original discrepancy described in a discrepant material report. He could have been assigned the job of correcting someone else's error, as Olson sometimes was. The kind of part shown on both Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2 was housing assembly-not that which Olson customarily performed on the main operation at that time. Olson did testify that probably the work shown on the second exhibit was his because the discrepancy shown was like one he remembered, but he testified that the part he was referring to was still on a machine being worked on on the very day that he was discharged and was, therefore, not scrap. I find that Respondent's Exhibits Nos. I and 2 fail to prove that Olson was responsible for the original dis- crepancy shown therein. In any event, however, they do not on their face show scrap; they show that the part was submitted to the buyer, and they do not show that the buyer rejected them, as was the case disclosed by another of the discrepant mate- rial reports in evidence, as described below. On cross-examination, Adams testified that the three parts mentioned in his affidavit as the one Palistrine told him were being rejected-all housing sets-may or may not have included the part shown on Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2. But those exhibits are the only discrepant material reports produced with Olson's name on them which show discrepancies on housing assemblies. The other three exhibits introduced by Respondent, all dated in October 1964, were for headplates rather than for housing sets. Adams' affidavit contains no reference to headplates. There is a statement in Adams' affidavit that the "two jobs that Olson scrapped in Jan- uary, 1965, were in addition" to the three parts mentioned above. The two jobs scrapped in January are not identified. If, in his affidavit, Adams meant to refer to the part shown on Respondent's Exhibits Nos. I and 2, he was misrepresenting that as scrap. The remaining three discrepant material reports bearing Olson's name as operator, Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 3, 4, and 6, are all dated October 29, 1964,16 the day after the union election, at which Olson was an observer for the Union. Olson testified that, at that time, Chief Inspector Joe Schaefer was making a log of a particular job and asked Olson to verify the discrepant material reports bearing his name. He did so as to Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 3 and 4. Respondent's Exhibit No. 6 was not produced by Respondent until Adams was on the stand for the Respondent. 17 Schaefer had left the Respondent 's employ several months before the hearing, but It was not shown that he was unavailable as a witness. Koudela was still employed. "Unlike other discrepant material reports in evidence, which are all handwritten, both the dates and other customary entries on these three exhibits are typewritten. 478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Olson was not questioned about it. This exhibit shows the same part number and job number as appears on Respondent's Exhibit No. 4, but it shows a different serial number. The significance of the serial number was not explained. Except for the serial number, the part and the fault appear to be the same. Respondent's Exhibit No. 3, in addition to the typed entries, bears the handwritten notation, "Defective drill. Tried to salvage on concentricity." Olson testified on cross-examination that he had not done the original work and had merely tried to correct the fault after someone else had used a defective drill and it had been found unacceptable. This exhibit shows that the part was submitted to the buyer but that the latter would not accept it It then became scrap, presumably. Respondent's Exhibit No. 4, in the space for the name of the operator, shows "Olson & Paul." The reason given for the making of scrap on exhibit 4 was "Hole drilled off location 10 Degrees. Location mis-read by operator and inspector." Olson iden- tified Paul as Paul Boucher, an inspector who was charged with the responsibility of standing at Olson's machine on that job to check 'the accuracy of Olson's set up and work. Olson concededly made scrap in this instance. Olson testified that, in setting up his job, he had misread a dial on the rotary table as to the location of one of the holes, that the inspector had checked his setup and had then told him to proceed. Since the hole was 10 degrees off location, the part was not salvageable. Olson testi- fied that the making of scrap was characteristic of this lob according to Inspector Brown, and he testified that inspectors and other employees had told him that he made less scrap on the job than most other employees. Although not specifically gone into on Adams' direct examination, the circum- stances related in Adams' affidavit concerning President Keppen's decision on March 5, 1965,19 to discharge Olson were inquired into on cross-examination, and Adams, at this time, sought to tie to Olson a quantity of scrap unidentified by any discrepant material reports. As related by Adams at the hearing, the story is that 2 or 3 days before Olson's discharge Adams and Piesident Keppen had gone through the plant and found "an excessive number of pacts in the quality control bond [boardf] room, which, so far as I [Adams] was concerned, was in hiding " Adams testified that he and Keppen took these to Keppen's office and went through each individual part to see if it was actually a scrap part or a part that could be salvaged and that they found none that could be salvaged. A picture of the Respondent's president and plant manager going through such parts, piece by piece, presumably measuring each of numerous dimensions-a job more readily and effectively peiformable by quality control inspectors-stretches credulity. According to serial numbers, Adams testified, these parts ran back to 90 or 120 days. No discrepant material reports existed for these, but in all parts, according to Adams, the defect was in the positioning of the jig bore Adams never did give a direct answer to how he could determine who had done the jig bore work on such parts. However, he testified that Keppen had asked him who was running rear headplates and that he had told Keppen that "George [Olson] is running this." Adams testified that he was not sure if there were another man on rear headplates within the past 120 days of that time (March 4 or 5). For reasons hereinafter stated I find such testimony incredible In this pile of scrap, according to Adams, there were three front headplates and 15 or 16 iear headplates. Olson worked principally on rear headplates. Adams testified that Schaefer, the head inspector, was the man who should have make up discrepant material reports on these parts but that he did not talk to Schaefer about it, although he "was sure" Keppen had, because "I think everyone of us was confronted [by Keppen] at one time or another through the week." Schaefer had left Respondent's employ somewhere around February 15, 1965,20 and was not there within the period when Keppen allegedly found the scrap, 2 or 3 days before Olson's discharge. From all the foregoing, I conclude, Adams was attempting to make it appear that Keppen ordered Olson's discharge because Adams had told Keppen that Olson was responsible for the unidentified scrap. This testimony would portray Adams as a man who would jump up to a conclusion on insufficient evidence. Yet when Adams was later confronted with a discrepant material report on a rear head plate such as Olson 19In his testimony Adams modified this to say that Keppen's decision was made on either March 4 or 5. 20 The February 15 date was based on Olson 's recollection Respondent's representa- tive offered a stipulation after he had asked Superintendent Kinane to telephone and get the date and that Schaefer last worked on March 1, 1965 The General Counsel rejected the offered stipulation. Respondent was offered time in which to prove the records but chose to close without doing so. PIONEER ASTRO METALLICS, INC. 479 might have worked on but which did not show any operator's name, and when Adams was asked if the inspector could not have assumed that Olson had done the work shown, Adams replied: "I prefer that my people don't assume. I'd rather they left it blank than to error." Adams conceded that someone besides Olson could have made the mistake shown on that discrepant material report. Adams' original effort to attribute all mislocated jig bore holes on read headplates to Olson alone was quali- fied later. Some of the later testimony even belied Adams' earlier testimony that he knew of no one but Olson who had worked on rear headplates. Adams admitted that during November and December 1964, there had been a night shift on which certain operators could have worked on rear headplates and he testified that Respondent never got an acceptable part from the night shift and that the night shift had scrapped an estimated five rear headplates. In this connection, these five rear headplates could have been among those unidentified plates that Adams testified he and Keppen found a few days before Olson was discharged. As previously stated, Adams at one point testified that only Olson did jig bore work on rear headplates so far as he knew. He testified that if anyone else worked on the jig bore on rear headplates it was contrary to his instructions. The General Counsel showed Adams a discrepant material report dated March 4, 1965, showing scrap made as a result of mislocations of holes on the jig bore on a headplate, rear, by Gordon Ellis, another jig bore operator (who usually did work on headplates, front). Adams testified that Ellis' work on rear headplates was contrary to his orders, but then testified that, "whether you could call it contrary or not" Superintendent Kinane and Foreman Koudela "run the shop how and as they see fit .... If Mr. Ellis did not have a front head plate to work on, I didn't want him to sit there and smoke a cigarette." At one point Adams testified that discrepant material reports are made out in triplicate and that he receives a copy of them each day they are made. He could not estimate the total number that had been made, but Adams testified that issuance of discrepant material reports was not an unusual occurrence, that Respond- ent might go 3 or 4 days without one and then get five or six of them. I judge that they are a weekly, if not daily, occurrence and that five or six a week would not be unusual. But I also find that, from seeing these reports, Adams was charged with knowledge that jig bore operators other than Olson had made scrap on rear headplates. Although each of the discrepant material reports in evidence showing Olson's work on read headplates was dated October 29, 1964, there is no evidence to show when the discrepant material had been worked on by Olson. Since they were all type- written and were all dated the same, I judge that they were all made on October 29, 1964, a date which could have been later than the date on which the work was done. I also infer that these three reports were something made up specially, because all other discrepant material reports in evidence or examined during the hearing were made out by hand. I conclude that the reports dated October 29, 1964, could, so far as the evidence shows, have covered work done at any time between May 25 and October 29, 1964. Olson, himself, testified that he believed he had made less scrap than others in the shop. Although this belief was based on what he would hear around the shop and was therefore not acceptable proof that he did make proportionately little scrap, there are other known facts which tend to support his belief. Adams testified that anyone who made too much scrap would not be around long. In his affidavit, Adams made the statement that every time a part was scrapped "the operator is given a little pep talk .... We try to impress upon him the value of the part." He also related in his affidavit that three jig bore operators were discharged in late 1964 or in 1965 for producing scrap on the jig bores. These were men named Southworth, Ransom, and Landers. Southworth was not listed as employed as of December 29, 1964, on the sheet of information furnished by the Respondent to the Union in January 1965. Presumably he was discharged before that time. Ransom and Landers had both been hired in October 1964. I infer from Adams' testimony that, at least as to Ransom and Landers, they were not around too long, about 3 months at most. In con- trast, Olson had been in Respondent's employ for more than 9 months. It would appear that if Olson had made excessive amounts of scrap he would not have been kept on for 9 months. He was obviously not discharged in October 1964, when the Respondent, on the day after the union election, prepared three discrepant material reports of scrap produced by Olson. If Olson were, in fact, so poor as to make excessive scrap, October would appear to have been the time to discharge him. Actually, the Respondent had no record of any scrap produced by Olson after October 1964. The two discrepant material reports issued in January 1965, even if 480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD taken to be evidence of mistakes made by Olson (an unwarranted assumption in view of the fact that Olson had more than once been called on to try to salvage a part on which some one else had made a mistake) and that that could have been the case on the part shown by these two exhibits), those reports are not proof that Olson made scrap. At most, they would show a mistake which might be corrected. So not only did Respondent fail to show any scrap made by Olson after October 1964, but the evi- dence indicates that the Respondent considered Olson's work satisfactory, for in February 1965, according to Olson's undenied testimony, Superintendent Kinane had told Olson that he had no complaints on Olson's work. On all the evidence, I reject the Respondent's asserted grounds for Olson's dis- charge. Olson had for some time been known to Manager Adams as a prominent union man-in fact he called Olson the Union's representative in the plant because Olson had been the Union's observer at the Board-conducted election on October 28, 1964. Because he believed Olson to be the Union's representative in the plant, Adams, on March 4, 1965, had sent for Olson when it was reported that employees were talking about a strike and, after getting assurance that a strike was not imminent, Adams had sought to convince Olsen that the employees did not need a union and would be better off without one. Despite Adams' epithets and expression of low opinion of the Union, Olson showed that he remained of the same mind-that the Union would be of benefit. Considering the Respondent's dislike for unions, its stalling bargaining tactics, the fact that the Union had just recently filed an unfair labor practice charge of refusal to bargain, the timing of Olson's discharge on the day after Adams had spoken to him about the Union, upon grounds that do not hold up, and the fact that Olson was discharged on the same day that Rapuano had telephoned Hinz to protest Adams' questioning of Olson and his vilification of the Union, I find the evidence as a whole convincing, and so find, that Respondent discharged Olson, not for producing excessive scrap, but because of his predilection for the Union and his activities in and on behalf of the Union, thereby discriminating in regard to Olson's hire and tenure of employment in violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. I also find that Adams' questioning of Olson about why he needed someone else to bargain with him constituted interference with, restraint, and coercion of employees in their exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. All Respondent's production and maintenance employees employed at its Hawthorne, California, plant, including shipping and receiving employees, truck- drivers, and warehousemen, but excluding all office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. At all times on and after November 5, 1965, the date of the Board's certification of the Union, the Union has been and still is the exclusive representative of all employees in the appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employ- ment within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 5. By failing and refusing to bargain in good faith with the Union as hereinabove found and by completely failing and refusing to bargain with the Union on and after May 17, 1965, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act. 6. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of George Olson, by discharging him on March 5, 1965, and by thereafter failing and refusing to reinstate him, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 7. By interrogating an employee concerning his reasons for desiring union repre- sentation as well as by the conduct described in paragraph 5 and 6, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. PIONEER ASTRO METALLICS, INC. 481 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. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, I recommend that Respondent, Pioneer Astro Metallics, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization of Respondent's employees, by discharging or other- wise discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment of any of its employees. (b) Failing and refusing to bargain collectively with United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all its employees in the unit hereinbefore found appropriate. (c) Interrogating its employees concerning their reasons for desiring union representation. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organiza- tions, including the Union herein, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and 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 as provided in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representa- tive of its employees in the appropriate unit herein found and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. (b) Offer to George Olson immediate and full reinstatement to his former or sub- stantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss he may have suffered by paying an amount equal to that which he would have earned, in Respondent's employ, absent the discrimination, between March 5, 1965, the date of his discharge, and the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings elsewhere during said period, the net amount to be computed on a quarterly basis in accordance with the Board's customary practice.21 Interest on said sum shall be paid at the rate of 6 percent per annum in accordance with the principle established in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. (c) Notify said Olson if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement, upon application, in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after his discharge from the Armed Forces. (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 under the terms of this Recommended Order. (e) Post at its Hawthorne, California, plant, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 22 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 31, shall, after having been duly signed by Respondent's representative, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to assure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. ri F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. 'e 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 notice In the further 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 Stites Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Deci<ion' and Order." 482 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (f) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of service of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.2i 23 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 Respondent has taken to comply herewith" APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of our employees in the appropriate unit, noted below, with respect to wages, hours, and other conditions of employment. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization by discharging or otherwise discrimi- nating against any of our employees because they have joined or assisted any such labor organization or engaged in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their reasons for desiring union representation. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist the above-named Union, or any other labor organization, to bargain col- lectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec- tion, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that mem- bership in a labor organization is made a condition of employment under the terms of a collective-bargaining agreement as permitted under the proviso to Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL offer George Olson immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights or privileges previously enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against him. WE WILL, upon request, bargain with United Steelworkers of America, AFL- CIO, as the exclusive representative of all our employees in the appropriate unit noted below with respect to wages, hours, and other conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody said understanding in a signed agreement. The appropriate unit is: All production and maintenance employees employed at the Hawthorne, California, plant, including shipping and receiving employees, truckdrivers, and warehousemen, but excluding all office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act. All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the above , named or any other labor organization. PIONEER ASTRO METALLICS, 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 his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective' Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, 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, 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California, Telephone No 688-5840, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.