Ulbrich Stainless Steels, Inc.

130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Ulbrich Stainless Steels, Inc. and United Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO. Case 1-CA-5512. April 26,1967 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND ZAGORIA excepted , are not contrary to a clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence , and we therefore adopt them . Standard Drywall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A. 3) We note that the Trial Examiner erroneously referred to the service of the charge herein as the service of a petition The names William Butler and Samuel McConnell are hereby added to paragraph 3 of the Conclusions of Law TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE On January 17, 1967, Trial Examiner Paul E. Weil issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint , and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision . Thereafter , the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief: the General Counsel also filed a brief. 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. 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 briefs, and the entire record in the 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 National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that Respondent, Ulbrich Stainless Steels, Inc., Wallingford, Connecticut, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns , shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. ' At the hearing, witness Butler was asked by Respondent's counsel whether he had made "book" in the plant He declined to answer on Fifth Amendment grounds The Trial Examiner did not direct him to answer , and no motion was made to strike the witness' testimony under Section 102 44(c) of the Board's Rules The Trial Examiner refused to draw any inference from Butler's refusal to answer the question In its brief to the Board, Respondent has moved to strike Butler's testimony under Section 102 44(c) The cited rule provides that the refusal of a witness to answer any question which has been ruled to be proper "shall, in the discretion of the Trial Examiner, be ground for striking all testimony previously given by such witness on related matters " Such a motion should be directed to the Trial Examiner, and ruling thereon made by him within his discretion . Accordingly, Respondent's present motion to the Board to strike Butler's testimony in its entirety is hereby denied After a careful review of the record, we conclude that the Trial Examiner's credibility findings, to which the Respondent PAUL E. WEIL, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge filed June 13, and amended June 28,i the General Counsel by the Regional Director for Region 1 (Boston, Massachusetts) issued his complaint on July 28, alleging that Ulbrich Stainless Steels, Inc. (herein called Respondent), violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by discharging three individuals in the month of June, and independently violated Section 8(a)(1) by various acts and conduct. The complaint was thereafter amended on September 2, and at the hearing, held before me, by the addition of three allegations of 8(a)( 1) violations . I conducted the hearing on the matter on October 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, and 20. All parties were represented by counsel. After the hearing, all parties were afforded an opportunity to make oral argument and file briefs. The Respondent and the General Counsel filed briefs after the close of the hearing. On the record , my observation of the witnesses, and in consideration of the briefs, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent is a Connecticut corporation engaged, in Wallingford, Connecticut , in the processing, sale, and distribution of stainless steel and related products. Respondent annually ships materials in interstate commerce valued in excess of $50 ,000. Respondent is and at all times relevant has been engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the policies of the Act to exercise jurisdiction herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, is, and at all times relevant hereto has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background Respondent operates its plant in Wallingford with about 100 employees . Management consists of Richard Ulbrich, vice president and apparently operating head of the firm, and Daniel Ulbrich, Richard's younger brother, vice president of the corporation and a "management trainee." At the time of the alleged unfair labor practices, Daniel Ulbrich occupied the position of personnel manager. Frank Riccardi is the plant superintendent in charge of the production and maintenance employees and their activities , with the exception of those employees involved in production control and quality control , with neither of which we are concerned herein. ' All dates herein are in the year 1966 unless otherwise specified 164 NLRB No. 22 ULBRICH STAINLESS STEELS Respondent's employees are not represented by any labor organization. In the early years of the present decade, apparently in 1962, the Charging Party attempted to organize the employees and a Board-conducted election was held which resulted in the rejection of the Union at that time. On April 18, Andrew J. Mezzi was hired as a slitter helper. Shortly after he was employed, Mezzi concluded that a union was desirable and contacted one Satori, the president of the local of the Charging Party which represented the employees at Wallingford Steel, a competitor of the Respondent. Satori furnished Mezzi with blue dues-deduction cards from the Charging Party to use in attempting to organize the employees. Three days later, Satori learned that the blue cards were not appropriate for the purpose but that white cards, authorizing the Charging Party to represent the employees, were more appropriate and agreed to furnish Mezzi with white cards. On May 20, Mezzi, who in the interim had taken no steps with regard to organization, received a pack of white cards from Satori and in the following week contacted 10 or 15 employees asking them to sign cards. The last day Mezzi worked was May 27. He took off May 31 and June 1 and 2 for personal reasons and on his return on June 2 was informed that he had been discharged for absenteeism. In the early steps of his organizing, Mezzi had contacted Arthur Arnold, who agreed to assist him but warned Mezzi to proceed with caution. Upon Mezzi's discharge, Arnold made no move until after June 7, on which date he had a conversation with Satori. Thereafter, Arnold commenced organizing within the plant. On June 15, Arnold was discharged, allegedly for absenteeism. About June 20, the organizing campaign became overt and thereafter through the summer Mezzi openly distributed literature and cards at the gate to the plant. Lawrence Tremaglio joined the Union on June 24 and, also on that date, made a statement to an investigator of the National Labor Relations Board investigating charges filed as a result of Mezzi's discharge. On June 27 Tremaglio was discharged, allegedly for absenteeism. On June 27, sometime in July, and on or about August 3, Respondent Richard Ulbrich delivered antiunion speeches to all of its employees in groups numbering from 15 to 30. It does not appear that the Respondent is charged with any violation stemming from the speeches. The complaint alleges that the discharges of Mezzi, Arnold, and Tremaglio resulted from their union activities and are violative of 8(a)(3) and (1). The General Counsel alleges also that Respondent has violated 8(a)(1) by a course of conduct including interrogation of employees in the hiring process and on June 3, 8, and 27 and July 15, and by threats of discharge and reprisals on June 8 and July 15. Respondent denies the commission of any unfair labor practice and contends in addition that it had no knowledge of any union organizational campaign prior to the receipt of the original charge on June 15. B. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion On May 27, William Butler, a furnace operator on the first shift, received permission to leave the plant at lunchtime to pick up pizzas for himself and other members of his crew, including the supervisor. On his way to the pizza shop, to which an order had been telephoned, Butler stopped at a bank and at a newsstand where he purchased 2 Butler testified that he had been in trouble some 4 years before 131 a horseracing scratch sheet. On his arrival at the pizza establishment, Butler found that his order was not yet ready and walked across the street to a bar, which he frequented at least 2 nights a week. As he entered he noticed Daniel Ulbrich across the street at an entrance to a lunchroom. Butler entered the bar and, with a friend whom he met there, commenced perusing the scratch sheet. Hearing a sound behind him, he turned around and saw Daniel Ulbrich and asked him what he was doing there. Ulbrich answered "I don't know" and left. Butler left, picked up the pizzas, and went back to his shop. On Butler's return to the plant, he told his foreman, Dennis Gifford, of seeing Daniel Ulbrich and said that he thought it was rather strange for them to be checking on him or whatever he was doing. Foreman Gifford answered, "Well, they are kind of worried about union activities and everything." About a half hour later Gifford was called to the office. When Gifford returned from the office, he asked Butler for the paper that he was reading in the bar. Gifford told Butler that he had seen Daniel Ulbrich follow Butler out of the shop when he went out for the pizzas. Gifford also told Butler that, in his opinion, the Ulbrichs might have thought that the paper (the scratch sheet) was a petition or a union paper with names on it. Butler gave him the scratch sheet and Gifford returned to the office. Daniel Ulbrich, testifying about the same incident, stated that on May 27 he went to a lunchroom called Mabel's to get a quick sandwich and, as he was entering the lunchroom, he saw Butler entering the Silver Fox bar. He followed Butler into the bar because "I was quite disturbed to see one of our employees going into a bar on company hours," and because he knew that the furnace operation was continuous and the employees had no time off for lunch. Daniel Ulbrich testified that he asked Butler what he was doing there and whether he was having a drink. Butler denied that he was drinking and stated that he was getting some sandwiches and both walked out. He also testified that Butler was putting something in his pocket and he mentioned this to Frank Riccardi and mentioned that he did not know what Butler was putting in his pocket. Later that afternoon, Ulbrich testified, he went up to Butler at his work and said, "Bill, I want you to know I have the right to follow you into any bar if you are on company hours and I don't want to find out that you have been drinking while you were on the clock." The following week, Butler was called to Richard Ulbrich's office where he found Frank Riccardi and' Richard Ulbrich. Richard Ulbrich, after asking him how long he had been employed by the Company (4 years) and whether he liked his job (yes), told him that he had dust had a conversation with John Cei, a local detective, who reported that Butler had not been in trouble lately.2 Butler testified that Richard Ulbrich then shook his head and said that he hated to see 4 years with the Company go to waste. When Butler asked what he meant, Ulbrich said, "You are involved in union activity aren't you?" Butler denied that he was and Ulbrich said that he knew that Butler had been approached by Satori. Riccardi then said that three employees in the shop had said that Butler was involved in the Union. Butler challenged them to produce the three employees so that he could call them liars to their faces. Ulbrich and Riccardi continued to insist that Butler was involved and that he was the ringleader and asked him 298-668 0-69-10 132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD who else was in the organizing with him. Butler denied any knowledge of the organization and either Ulbrich or Riccardi told him that they had already caught the head man behind the Union, Andrew Mezzi, and had gotten rid of him. When Butler continued to insist that he had nothing to do with any union organization, he was told to go back to his job and think it over for the rest of the day and come up with a different answer. He answered that he could not come up with a different answer if they gave him a year to think about it because he knew nothing about it. Butler went back to his job and concluded that he was all through with the Company and asked his supervisor if he could get his vacation pay. The supervisor said that he could not afford to lose him and Butler said, "Well, I can't work under these conditions with people watching me and suspecting me of these things and I can't do my job right." Butler's supervisor called Richard Ulbrich and told him that Butler wanted to quit whereupon Butler was called back to Richard Ulbrich's office. On this occasion, Daniel Ulbrich as well as Frank Riccardi were also present. One of the management group told Butler about the prior union organizational attempt 4 or 5 years before and mentioned that the Union had lost "something like 97 to 6" and that the men who organized the Union had been discharged. They suggested that Butler return to his job and think it over and he did so without further talk about quitting. Richard Ulbrich testified to the same conversation but stated that the Union was never mentioned and that he had called Butler in to his office because he suspected him of bookmaking. He told Butler that he had talked to his cousin, Detective John Cei, and asked if Butler had been picked up or even suspected of bookmaking. According to Richard Ulbrich, this is all he said. Butler recognized what he was talking about and denied that he was involved in any way in bookmaking in the shop or out of the plant and then became perturbed and asked if he could leave. Ulbrich also testified that he did not come back. Ulbrich specifically denied asking him whether he had been approached by Satori or any reference to Andrew Mezzi or to any former organization in the plant. Riccardi testified that he had heard there was bookmaking in the plant and suggested that Butler be called into the office and interrogated about it. According to his version, after Ulbrich told Butler about his call to the police department, Butler asked, "What is this all about?" Riccardi "jumped in" and said that he had been told by certain individuals that Butler was booking horses and he had found racing forms, scratch sheets, and obscene literature in a vertical tower at the plant and had found some literature in barrels. He testified that Butler then got angry and asked whether they were accusing him, whereupon Riccardi answered, "No one is accusing you of anything, we are just asking you." Butler then said, "You fellows don't trust me," and Riccardi answered, "We're just trying to get the truth and tell you if you are bookmaking, to cut it out." After further conversation along these lines, Butler lost his temper and said he was going to go to the Union, whereupon "we said for him to go ahead" and that was the end of the conversation. Riccardi also denied that there was any mention of Mezzi or any mention of union activities other than Butler's threat to go to the Union. Riccardi was not asked whether there was another meeting later that day. Butler testified to a third incident later in June when Richard Ulbrich came to his workplace and told him that a man from the Board was coming to town and would probably question Butler. He testified that Ulbrich said that lie would deny any discussion with Butler and that would put Butler in an embarrassing situation. Butler was not interviewed on that occasion by anyone from the Board. Ulbrich denied that any such conversation had taken place at any time. Respondent contends that the testimony of Butler is unworthy of belief as "it is no more than the attempt of one who is caught at the industrial crime of making book, of attempting to alibi out of it by making charges against the accuser." Respondent also submits that the alleged violation is an isolated incident as well and should be disregarded for that reason. Butler testified that he had never talked to a Board agent , including the attorney trying the case, prior to the time he took the witness stand, except to refuse to sign a statement. He testified that sometime between the occurrences detailed above and the hearing, Andrew Mezzi had met him in a bar and bought him five or six beers and at that time he had dictated a letter to Mezzi containing the story as he told it on the witness stand. Thereafter, he took the letter home and later transcribed it, and a week or so later gave it to Mezzi. He testified that he is still employed by the Respondent and that in August Respondent had attempted to get him a draft deferment on a hardship basis and had promised that if he were called up they would attempt to get him deferred on an occupational basis. I consider that Respondent's attack on Butler's credibility is ill conceived. He did not admit and was not caught at the industrial crime of making book. In fact, Dan Ulbrich had caught him in a bar and thought he had gone there for the purpose of getting a drink. There is no evidence that he, at anytime, made book in the plant.3 I credit Butler as to all three conversations. The incident on May 27 is important only in that it led to the statement by Butler's supervisor, Dennis Gifford, that revealed that, as early as May 27, Respondent was concerned about the union organization. Gifford was not called to testify." I infer from the lack of explanation, as well as from the corroborating testimony concerning the incident with the scratch sheet furnished by Daniel Ulbrich, that Butler's testimony is to be credited. I note that he was reluctant to appear and testify but that on the witness stand he testified in relevant aspects with candor. As to the second conversation during the week of June 2, I note the very substantial variance between the accounts given by Riccardi and Richard Ulbrich, both of which are at substantial variance with that of Butler. I credit Butler largely on the basis of his demeanor. I consider that his credibility is enhanced and supported both by the fact that he is still in the employ of 3 When asked whether he had done so, Butler declined to answer on Fifth Amendment grounds I cannot base a finding that he had committed a crime in the plant on this evidence, particularly in view of the fact that the question asked, "Do you make book in the shop"" is so ambiguous, at least to me, that I could not conclude, even from an affirmative answer , that he had broken any law ° Riccardi testified that Gifford was no longer employed at the plant However, there is no indication that Respondent made any attempt to call him as a witness or that Respondent faced any difficulty in locating him ULBRICH STAINLESS STEELS 133 Respondent,s and the additional fact that he has much to lose in view of the Employer's past and promised future attempt to have him deferred by the Selective Service Board. Finally, I reject Respondent 's suggestion that his testimony is not to be believed because he had had a number of beers when he first reported the story to Mezzi. Butler was obviously sober on the witness stand and his demeanor and deportment were such as to enhance rather than impair his credibility. Accordingly, I find that Respondent knew of the union organization as early as May 27, and I find that Respondent, by interrogating and impliedly threatening Butler during the first week in June, restrained and coerced him in the exercise of his organizational rights protected by Section 7 in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Andrew Mezzi testified that when he was hired he was interrogated about his feelings toward the Union. Gerald Noonan and Samuel McConnell both testified credibly to the same effect . In view of the fact that substantial corroboration is given Mezzi's story by the similar occurrences with regard to Noonan and McConnell, in the face of Respondent's denial that it had ever questioned employees in this regard , I credit Mezzi's account. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by interrogating prospective employees concerning their opinions with regard to the Union. Samuel McConnell, an employee presently on the first shift, testified that in the middle of June he was employed on the third shift . When he came to work one night, he was told by the second -shift supervisor to stay over in the morning because Frank Riccardi wanted to see him. In the morning, when his own work was done, he was put on packing work until 8 :30, on overtime , at which time Riccardi came in to work. At 8:30, Riccardi took McConnell into the office of Richard Ulbrich. Ulbrich had before him a copy of McConnell's employee record and, after telling McConnell what a good worker he was, asked McConnell whom he ate lunch with at night . McConnell said he ate lunch with everybody. Ulbrich asked what they talked about . McConnell answered they talked about trucks, cars , and houses . Ulbrich said , "There is no sense my beating around the bush , you know what I mean." When McConnell said he did now know what he meant, Ulbrich said, "You know they are trying to get a union in here and I got rumors that you were at the coffee machine with about 8 or 10 guys talking about the Union." McConnell denied that he was talking about the Union and Ulbrich said that he had already "got one." He said, "You know we got rid of your buddy, Mezzi." McConnell denied knowing Mezzi and Ulbrich said , "What about Art Arnold? What did he talk about ?" McConnell pointed out that Arnold worked on a mill which does not shut down for lunch and that he therefore did not know what Arnold talked about . Ulbrich said , "Well, I don 't think you signed a card yet, but if I hear that you signed a card , that will be it. You will be fired." McConnell again denied that he knew anything about the Union. Ulbrich said that the girls at the union hall who handled the cards only make $60 a week, and he could find out who signed the cards, and pointed out that if he had to make a whole change in the personnel , it might take a couple of years but that he would do it. McConnell continued to insist that he didn't know anything about the Union and Riccardi called him a liar and asked him if he'd swear on the Bible. McConnell said he would swear on the Bible but Riccardi wouldn't believe him anyway. Ulbrich said, "I don't know about you but stay away from Arnold." After the conversation above, according to McConnell's testimony , he signed a card for the Union and on July 15, passed out literature for the Union at the company gate. On July 15, during the day, he testified , Frank Riccardi called at his home for him a number of times and left word for him to get in touch with Riccardi . He went into the plant about 4:30 that afternoon and was taken to Richard Ulbrich's office by Riccardi. In Ulbrich's office, Ulbrich asked him what he would gain by campaigning for the Union and stated that the Union must be paying him for organizing. McConnell denied this and Ulbrich said that a good friend of McConnell's had told him that he "got conned into the Union and wanted out and didn't know how to get out." McConnell answered that whoever said that is a liar and asked who it was . Riccardi interjected, "You know some people seem to think when you got a union shop you've got a life-time job, but that 's not true" and Ulbrich said , "I am going to give you a choice, you stop campaigning now and don 't go to any more meetings and we won't fire you." McConnell pointed out that with a union shop they would have to have a reason for firing him and Ulbrich said , "We can make all kinds of reasons. We can jump on the quality of your work , we can bring up your absenteeism , we can find all kinds of excuses, but just trust in us and we won 't fire you later." When McConnell said that after the last conversation he could not trust them and never had, Riccardi said , "I do not see how you can have faith in gangsters like Arnold and Satori," and referred profanely to DeBow , the union organizer. Ulbrich then said , "Let's face it Sam , you're making pretty good money here. Where the hell are you going to make the money that you're making now? You have a house to pay for and four kids and where are you going to find a job that will pay you what you're making now? After all this is over Arnold , Satori and Mezzi aren 't going to give a damn and you're just going to be without a job. All we want is for you to sit back and keep your mouth shut and don't go to any more meetings and we won 't fire you." After further conversation , Ulbrich said that he knew that there would be a union meeting the following day and that if he found out McConnell made a statement concerning this conversation , that he would lose his job. At this point, McConnell left. Under cross-examination , Respondent's counsel brought out from McConnell a third conversation which took place mid-August and concerning which there had been no testimony given on his direct examination. On redirect examination, McConnell testified that he had refused to tell the General Counsel about the third conversation because he felt that he had agreed with Ulbrich that neither would mention the conversation. His testimony concerning the conversation is that in mid- August, while he was at work on the third shift , Ulbrich came to him about midnight at his machine and said, "Sam, I didn't say that you had no choice as far as joining the Union." He went on to say that he knew that McConnell had made a statement to that effect. McConnell said that he knew that Ulbrich had said that and asked how he knew it was in the statement if he did not say it . Ulbrich said somebody told him and that he knew everything that was in McConnell's statement. 'See Georgia Rag Mill, 131 NLRB 1304 134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Ulbrich then said, "All right I did say it but I will deny it at the hearing."6 Ulbrich went on, saying, "I will tell you another thing, I fired Arnold and Tremaglio and I will deny that at the hearing." McConnell answered, "I don't care what you do at the hearing." Thereafter Ulbrich and McConnell argued the merits of the union organization. McConnell testified Ulbrich said that Arnold and Mezzi would never set foot in the plant again and told McConnell that he was fired but not right now; that it would take a little time. Ulbrich asked McConnell to quit and McConnell said that he was not going to quit, that he liked his job. Ulbrich told him if he quit then he would give him a good recommendation, but if he refused to quit, he would see that he never got a job in the State again. McConnell testified that he knew if he informed or testified about this conversation that Ulbrich would blackball him and he knew that he could never get a job, so he promised not to make a statement. Ulbrich and Riccardi both denied the first conversation. They testified in essence that in mid-June, McConnell had stayed over by his own choice one morning and asked Riccardi to take him to Ulbrich's office in order to attempt to borrow some money in order to consolidate his debts. Ulbrich testified that he had declined to lend him the money although he offered to arrange for him to borrow it from a bank.? As to the second conversation, Riccardi testified that he had not sought a conversation with McConnell but rather McConnell had left word with the second-shift supervisor that he wanted to have Riccardi call him. Riccardi called the following day and McConnell came in to see him; he took McConnell to Ulbrich's office at which time McConnell told him and Ulbrich that he did not want them to think he was the one who had brought the Union in, but that all the other fellows were deserting the Union and leaving him holding the sack. Riccardi testified that McConnell was under the influence of liquor at this time and Ulbrich suggested that he go home and sober up before it was time to go to work. Thereafter he left. Ulbrich generally corroborated the testimony of Riccardi. As to the third conversation in August, Ulbrich testified that he had, in fact, sought McConnell out at his workplace at midnight because he had heard that McConnell had said he was interested in the Union because of things that Ulbrich had done to McConnell. Ulbrich wanted to point out to McConnell that he should not lie about such matters and that he had never done anything harmful to McConnell. Thereafter, his account concerning the debate about the Union, pro and con, is not substantially different from the testimony of McConnell's except that he denied making any threats or asking McConnell to quit or asking McConnell to keep their conversation a secret. I credit McConnell as to all three meetings . I base this on the fact that I was impressed with his demeanor as a witness and with his frankness and candor. This was, in fact, enhanced by the manner in which his account of the third meeting was brought out. He was visibly upset and reluctant to testify about the meeting when it was first broached, which I find to be the natural result of his honoring his promise to keep the conversation confidential. The obvious corroboration of his testimony as to the third meeting by his notes,8 which were written only 20 minutes after the occurrence, further enhances his credibility. As to the first meeting, the accounts are so different that it would appear that the various parties were talking about two different meetings . Whether this be so, I find that Ulbrich made the statement substantially as testified to by McConnell and I believe that the third meeting, which I have heretofore found to have accorded with McConnell's testimony, was an attempt by Ulbrich to coerce McConnell so that he would not reveal the statements made in the earlier conversations. Accordingly, I find that by the statements made in mid- June and on or about July 15, Richard Ulbrich coercively interrogated and threatened McConnell in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.9 C. The Alleged 8(a)(3) Violations 1. Andrew Mezzi During Mezzi's brief tenure with the Employer, he was frequently late to work and had been absent on three occasions prior to June. On May 31 and June 1 and 2, Mezzi was absent and on his return was discharged for absenteeism, according to the Respondent. Riccardi testified that when he ascertained on May 31 that Mezzi was absent, he decided to discharge him and that he was impelled to this decision by the complaints voiced by Supervisor Polnar, that Mezzi's absenteeism and attitude were affecting production, and specifically by the complaint of Leadman DuBois whose incentive earnings were tied to those of Mezzi and who complained that Mezzi's absenteeism cut down his (DuBois') incentive earnings. Respondent produced DuBois who testified on direct examination that he had asked to have Mezzi removed because Mezzi's absences cut down on his incentive earnings and that he was primarily interested in making a living. However, under vigorous cross-examination, DuBois' story changed completely. He admitted that because he was on a different incentive plan, working without a helper, he was able to earn more money when Mezzi was absent than when he was present. It appeared from his testimony that any objection he had resulted from Mezzi's presence because he was a new helper and needed to be instructed in his work by the operator or by DuBois, who was the setup man. I discredit Polnar's testimony that he reported to Riccardi that DuBois was complaining about Mezzi's absences and, accordingly, I discredit Riccardi who 6 The complaint had already been issued ' As to the fact that McConnell was paid overtime for the time he waited to talk to Ulbrich, at one point Riccardi testified that it was standard operating procedure that anyone who wanted to talk to Ulbrich would be paid the time he had to wait On cross- examination, however, asked whether, if McConnell had wanted to have the meeting on his own , he would have assigned overtime, Riccardi answered, "I don't know, I don't think I would, I don't think so " " Obvious by reason of the fact that Respondent's counsel was given an opportunity to read the notes and would certainly have called it to my attention if the notes were not consis tent with his testimony 9 For obvious reasons no allegations concerning the third conversation are to be found in the complaint, nor did the General Counsel move at the close of the hearing to amend the complaint to allege any violations While the issue was fully litigated, and Ulbrich's statements unquestionably violative , I do not deem it necessary to make specific findings with relation to this incident inasmuch as the order I shall recommend, based on other incidents found above to be violative, would, in my opinion, amply remedy the violations involved in the August conversation ULBRICH STAINLESS STEELS testified that he determined to discharge Mezzi as a result of Polnar's complaint. i° It is clear that Mezzi 's attendance record was far from good . If Respondent's evidence as to its motivation for the discharge were credible, and if the record did not contain admissions by Richard Ulbrich that Mezzi was discharged because of his union activity, it would appear that he was discharged for cause . However, under the following circumstances : (1) I discredit Respondent's contention that it had no knowledge of union activity prior to June 15, (2) the only union activity prior to Mezzi's discharge was Mezzi's activity, (3) the testimony was contrived concerning the causation of Mezzi 's discharge, and (4) Ulbrich's admissions that Mezzi was discharged because of his union activity, all convinced me that his discharge was consummated in order to discourage union activity among Respondent's employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act and I so find. Late in the afternoon of June 2, Mezzi came to the plant for his pay , which was due that day . His supervisor, pursuant to instructions from Superintendent Riccardi, told him that he was discharged for absenteeism and to come in the next day for his check. On June 3, Mezzi came to the personnel office for his check. Although we have four accounts of the ensuing events from four participants, no two of them agree. Mezzi testified that he came into the front office and was told by Richard Ulbrich' s secretary to have a seat and that Frank Riccardi would like to speak to him. He waited approximately 10 minutes and Riccardi came into the front office, said, "Please come with me," and took him into Richard Ulbrich's office where Richard was seated behind his desk and Daniel Ulbrich was seated in a corner. Richard Ulbrich asked Mezzi if he had to work and offered to change his shift and take him off the machine he worked on and give him a machine for himself if Mezzi would disclose who was involved with him in the organizing. Mezzi declined to inform on his fellows and Ulbrich asked , "What about Art Arnold? Is he involved with you in this union organizing?" Mezzi said that he was not and Ulbrich asked about Bill Butler . Mezzi admitted knowing Butler but denied that he was involved with him. Riccardi said that he knew union officials doing organizing were paid handsomely and said that he had had experience with that kind of organizing. Richard Ulbrich asked what Satori and Mezzi were trying to cook up and said that he knew that they had been seen in John's Delicatessen . Mezzi said , "Yes, that's true." Then Ulbrich said, "If I see or hear of you speaking to any of my employees about union matters, I will blackball you from every industry in this part of the State. You realize, of course, I can do this ... if they call here for your records, all I have to tell them is you are a troublemaker and an agitator and you will never get the job . Secondly, I will have the police harass you and thirdly, I know you like politics and I know you enjoy it. I will ruin you in politics." Mezzi replied , "That remains to be seen . Of course, I'm going to take you before the National Labor Relations Board." Riccardi said, "We'll deny any accusations that you make against us and we will deny that this conversation even took place. We feel that the records will prove that you were fired because of your attendance." 10 It seems improbable that DuBois would have complained about Mezzi's tardiness The record reveals that Mezzi was tardy only three times during the time he worked with DuBois During the same time , DuBois was tardy , although excused, six times and on one of those six, Mezzi was late only 5 minutes so that he probably arrived before DuBois Thus, DuBois would probably 135 Mezzi then departed and picked up his check in the office. Daniel Ulbrich testified that he entered the outside office and saw Mezzi standing there and exchanged greetings with him . Knowing that Mezzi was being terminated , he asked him what the story was and Mezzi answered , "I don't feel like talking, I'm waiting for Frank Riccardi." Riccardi came in and asked for the blue slip. t t Mezzi became disturbed and told Riccardi, "You can't do this to me," and Riccardi said , "Let's not discuss it here, let's go into Richard Ulbrich's office." All three, Mezzi, Riccardi , and Daniel Ulbrich , went into Richard Ulbrich's office with Daniel following. They were both arguing back and forth with Mezzi doing most of the talking. The two Ulbrichs looked at each other and shrugged their shoulders . Mezzi said , "I know you are the boss, and I know that I am just a peon , but you can't do this to me." Then he turned to Richard Ulbrich and referred to himself as a peon again and said , "This isn't fair and I 'm going to get even." He mentioned something about a State Labor Board and Riccardi said , "That is alright , that is your right to go to the State Labor Board ." Then he mentioned something about the Union and Richard Ulbrich said, "What are you talking about a union ?" Mezzi said, "I'm going to make some trouble." With that Mezzi left with Riccardi. Daniel Ulbrich denied that his brother made a statement that he had a deal for Mezzi , would change his shift and give him a machine if Mezzi would tell him who else was in the Union, or that his brother asked about Art Arnold or Butler or that their names occurred in the conversation. Riccardi's story is again different : he said he got a call telling him that Mezzi had arrived , so after a couple of errands he walked into the office and Mezzi looked at him and said , "You can't do this to me" and became very boisterous . Because he did not want to disturb Daniel Ulbrich , who was interviewing an applicant, he took Mezzi into Richard Ulbrich's office, not knowing whether Richard was there or not . Richard Ulbrich was sitting behind his desk when they went in and asked, "What is this all about," and Riccardi told him that he was terminating Mezzi and that Mezzi was quite upset. He asked Mezzi to sit down and tried to explain why he was terminated but Mezzi would not permit him to say anything. He started repeating that he was going to go to the Board. Riccardi said , "Well, that is your prerogative, you can do that if you like. Go right ahead ." Then Mezzi said, "I'm going to the Union" and Richard Ulbrich said, "What union ? We have no union here." Mezzi answered, "You'll find out," and made threats that he was going to make trouble. He told Ulbrich and Riccardi that he was influential in politics and they asked him to leave. Riccardi testified that he never did tell Mezzi the reason for his discharge although the blue slip showed it. On further interrogation, by Respondent 's counsel, Riccardi recalled that Mezzi said , "You think just because you own a factory, you own the town and you are going to step all over us little small people." Riccardi denied that Richard Ulbrich said he had a deal for Mezzi or he would change his shift , denied recalling Ulbrich asking Mezzi whether he had to work, denied that Richard Ulbrich offered Mezzi a different machine if he would tell who was with him in the Union, 12 and denied have known only of two of Mezzi's tardinesses during this period DuBois' tardiness , almost every working day in May, was excused, although it appears that on occasions he was tardy only because he overslept The blue slip is a discharge document Riccardi pointed out that Mezzi could not run any machine 136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that Mezzi was questioned about Art Arnold, Bill Butler, or any other person. He also denied that he said union organizers get paid handsomely to organize and that Richard Ulbrich threatened to blackball Mezzi or harass him or ruin him in politics and he denied saying that they would deny any statements or that they had a conversation. On cross-examination Riccardi elaborated somewhat and stated that Mezzi told him he was going to the Board when he was in the outside office and then repeated it when in the inside office. Richard Ulbrich testified that he did not know that Mezzi was being discharged, that he was disturbed by a loud shouting in the outside of his office, and that no one else was in his office at the time the door opened and Frank Riccardi, Daniel Ulbrich, and Andrew Mezzi walked in all together. Mezzi was talking at the time, and he said "it is not fair" and continued talking. Riccardi tried to quiet Mezzi and both told him to sit down. Mezzi continued talking, saying that he thought he was getting a raw deal and it was unfair. Riccardi looked at Richard Ulbrich and said, "I'm firing this guy because of excessive absences and he's lazy." Richard Ulbrich said, "That's good enough for me" and Mezzi continued talking and stated that he was going to bring it before a labor board. Ulbrich said, "Bring what before the Board?" Mezzi answered, "I have been fired unjustly." Riccardi said that the people Mezzi had been working with on the shift were complaining because he was lazy and had been costing them money because it was a production machine and the incentive is calculated on the group basis, and they do not want a lazy man or an undependable man. They want to get rid of him. The superintendent had agreed to it and the decision had already been made, and Riccardi stated, "If you want to bring us before the Labor Board, you go right ahead, that is your prerogative." Then Mezzi said that he would get even with them or he would get them and threatened to get the Union after them. Ulbrich said, "What union? You know we are not unionized." Mezzi repeated, "I will get the Union after you." Mezzi then walked out and that was the end of it. Ulbrich denied asking Mezzi if he had to work, offering him a deal, offering to change his shift, or asking about Arnold, Butler or anyone else. He also denied threatening to harass him with the police or blackball him or stating, "What are you and Satori trying to cook up." I do not credit any of the counts completely. I noted during the hearing that Mezzi has a loud voice, a quick tongue, and an even quicker temper. I find it incomprehensible that Respondent, having already decided to discharge Mezzi, filled out the necessary papers, informed him of the discharge, and prepared his termination pay, would have called him in solely for the purpose of explaining the reasons for his discharge, which would appear to be self-explanatory, or on the other hand that they would have commenced the discussion by offering him a machine of his own (which he probably could not operate), a raise in pay, or a transfer to the day shift. I believe that Respondent, knowing of Mezzi's quick temper and tendency to speak out, arranged for him to come into the office under circumstances that were calculated to cause him to lose his temper in the hope that he would indulge in a diatribe and reveal additional information concerning the union organization. As Richard Ulbrich testified with relation to his conversation with McConnell in August, "I wasn't about to do any unnecessary talking at that time, but I did want to listen to find out what was new, what the new argument was and I wanted to learn things and I did." I believe that in his conversation with Mezzi, Richard Ulbrich was similarly trying to "learn things" and to that end I believe that he did in fact ask about the participation of other employees in the union effort as Mezzi testified. Also I believe that at the end of the meeting, either Richard Ulbrich or Frank Riccardi used the threat of a blackball against Mezzi in an attempt or with the hope of coercing him to refrain from revealing the conversation. This is of course similar to the statement by Ulbrich to McConnell. Accordingly, I find that by the threat of retaliation and by interrogation Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 2. Arthur Arnold Arthur Arnold was employed from May 1965 until his discharge in June 1966 as a rolling mill helper on the third shift. His hours of employment were from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. Immediately after Mezzi commenced the organizational campaign for the Union, by obtaining the cards from Satoh, he communicated with Arnold as to ways and means to commence organization. Arnold took no active part other than "more or less feeling a few people out about it" until Mezzi was discharged on June 3. On June 7, Arnold testified he had a meeting with Satori after which he signed a union card. During his 14-month career with Respondent, Arnold was given two merit ratings and on each occasion was rated very highly. On each such occasion he would have received a raise except for the fact that the raises were denied because of his absenteeism. The attendance record for Arnold, received in evidence, indicates that in the year 1966, prior to May 15, Arnold was either tardy or absent over one-third of the workdays. On May 13, Arnold was absent; his wife called the plant to report that he was ill. That night, during working hours, he was arrested in a gambling raid, a full report of which appeared in the newspaper. The following workday, Riccardi called the matter to Arnold's attention. Arnold offered no excuses for his absence. After May 15, Arnold was called up for his second merit review and was told that he had scored highly in the merit rating but would not be given an increase in pay because of his absenteeism. He was warned that he would be let go if his absenteeism did not improve. Arnold indicated that he wanted to earn more money and promised to improve his record on absences and tardinesses. Thereafter, Arnold was neither tardy nor absent again until June 4, on which day he was tardy, June 6, on which day he was absent, and June 11, on which day he was tardy by 4 hours. On June 15, according to Arnold's testimony, he was asked to stay over to see Frank Riccardi but because he had an appointment and he would have had to wait for an hour after his shift for Riccardi to come in, he left word that he would call Riccardi later in the day and left the factory. That afternoon he called Riccardi who told him that he was discharged for absenteeism. Arnold pointed out that his record had improved since the last denial of the merit increase, some 3 weeks before, and Riccardi answered, "It doesn't matter, we have checked out the past 6 month period and we feel that you have too much and we are going to have to let you go." Arnold asked whether he could work that night and whether he could work the rest of the week and Riccardi refused to permit him to come in again, but told him that he would be paid for that night. ULBRICH STAINLESS STEELS 137 Riccardi testified that at the time of the merit review in May, he had made up his mind that he did not want Arnold in his organization and at that time he started looking for a replacement for him. He further testified that finally because of the 4-hour tardiness on June 10, he decided to replace him and took a man, Larry Daigel , out of the stockroom and put him on as a helper . He further testified that Daigel started as a helper 2 or 3 days after the discharge of Arnold.13 Although Riccardi testified that he had determined together with Foreman Barillaro to discharge Arnold in mid-May at the time of the gambling raid, Barillaro testified that Arnold 's discharge was not mentioned until after the occasion of June 11 , when Arnold was absent for 4 hours . At that time , he testified , Riccardi stated that Arnold would have to be discharged and Barillaro agreed. About a week before Arnold's discharge, according to the credited testimony of McConnell, in the conversation in Richard Ulbrich's office between McConnell, Richard Ulbrich, and Frank Riccardi , Ulbrich , in a context of questioning about the union activity on the third shift, asked what Art Arnold talked about at lunch. McConnell pointed out that Arnold had to stay on his mill and did not eat lunch with the other employees. At the close of that conversation , Ulbrich told McConnell to stay away from Art Arnold, which in context could only have meant a warning that Arnold was engaged in union organization and that McConnell should shun him to avoid being similarly infected. In August in the "confidential " conversation between Richard Ulbrich and McConnell, concerning which I have credited McConnell's account , Ulbrich stated that he fired Arnold and Tremaglio but would deny that at the hearing and again , in context, this could only be considered an admission on his part that he fired them for union activity. I have carefully scrutinized the evidence with regard to Respondent 's alleged reason for the discharge of Arnold. There can be no question that his attendance record was deplorable and while it had improved substantially during the first 2 weeks of June, it was still not good. On the other hand, as the General Counsel points out , for the 11 preceding months, Respondent had put up with the poorer attendance record he had established. It is clear that Respondent considered Arnold and Mezzi to be the leading organizers for the Union at Respondent's plant. Riccardi's story about the discharge does not seem true. He testified that when he learned on Saturday , June 11, that Arnold had been absent half of the preceding night, he determined to discharge Arnold. Thereafter, on the 14th, he left word for Arnold to wait for him on the 15th so that he could discharge him; ultimately he discharged him when Arnold called in in the afternoon of the 15th. At that time, he declined to let him finish the week, but gave him pay for the night of the 15th, in lieu of notice. No explanation is given for the lapse between the morning of the 11th and the evening of the 14th when suddenly Arnold's discharge became a matter of urgent necessity. I note also that Riccardi , in leaving word for Arnold to wait for him on the 15th , did not tell Arnold's supervisor why he wanted to see him. In the earlier occurrences with Mezzi, Mezzi's supervisor was told that Mezzi was to -be discharged and why. I conclude that Riccardi did not have it in mind to discharge Arnold at the time he left the message on June 14 but by the time Arnold reached him on the afternoon of the 15th, the Union's petition in the representation case had been served. The only intervening circumstance that appears is the service of the petition. Accordingly, I conclude that Arnold was discharged because of his union activity in violation of 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 3. Lawrence Tremaglio Lawrence Tremaglio was hired in December 1965 and worked on a furnace during the day shift. He was apparently an excellent worker for he received four raises between December 1965 and June when he was discharged . He was absent once in January, four times in April, three times in May, and six times in June up to June 25 on which day he was discharged. Tremaglio testified that in the earlier part of June he had been called to Riccardi' s office where Riccardi commented that he had been absent quite a few times. Tremaglio told him that he knew this and Riccardi said that what he really wanted to talk about were union activities in the shop and questioned Tremaglic whether he knew anyone that had a part in the Union. Tremaglio said that he did not. Riccardi asked Tremaglio if he knew that Mezzi had been terminated. Tremaglio said that he did not and said that he knew nothing about the Union. Riccardi then took Tremaglio to Ulbrich's office where Ulbrich asked if Frank Riccardi was going to talk about Tremaglio's attendance record. Riccardi answered that he would like to clear up a few things about the Union. Riccardi started talking about the Union and giving the Company's argument against union organization after which he asked again about Mezzi and also whether Art Arnold had any part in the Union . Tremaglio, who at this time was unaware of the union organizing campaign, denied knowing whether Arnold or Mezzi were involved and denied that he had anything to do with the Union. As he left the office he was told to ask anyone he heard talking about the Union to go to the office and hear the Company's side. On June 23 , Tremaglio was given the day off in order to attend a court trial . He was to have reported again on the 24th but did not come in to work. On that day he went to the union hall where he signed a card and was interviewed by an investigator of the Board with reference to the charges theretofore filed in the instant case. The following Monday, Tremaglio went into work and was asked by Riccardi where he had been the preceding Friday. He testified that he told Riccardi that he went to the union hall and heard the Union's side and decided to join the Union. He testified that a couple hours later , Riccardi came up to him and asked him to do the shop a favor and quit. He decided to do so, because he would not be able to get unemployment benefits. Riccardi said he would call the unemployment office and find out whether he could get benefits . On the way to his office to make the telephone call, Riccardi questioned Tremaglio whether he had made any statements on Friday. Tremaglio said that he had not done so. Riccardi took him to his office and discharged him, giving him a blue slip which read that he was discharged for absenteeism. 11 Foreman Barillaro testified that Daigel had been the second- shift helper since April ; for 2 days after Arnold 's discharge, Daigel and the first -shift helper split up the third shift, each working 12 hours a day . Thereafter, Phil Adams was transferred from the stockroom to the third -shift helper, the job formerly held by Arnold. 138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Riccardi testified that in early June Tremaglio came to him and asked him about the Union, stating that he had never worked under a union shop and didn't know anything about it. Thereafter, Riccardi's account of the conversation is substantially the same as Tremaglio's except that Riccardi denies that he asked any questions. Riccardi testified that on June 27, aware that Tremaglio had not come in on the 24th as he had promised, he had not made up his mind what to do about Tremaglio until he talked to him. Riccardi testified that in the conversation he asked Tremaglio why he was not present on the 24th. Tremaglio merely shrugged his shoulders without explanation whereupon Riccardi told him that he was going to fire him. He testified thereafter they stayed together until he had filled out the discharge papers and as Tremaglio was leaving the plant he told Riccardi that in case he wanted to know that he had made a statement against the Company on Friday. Riccardi said it was too late now, he didn't care what Tremaglio had done on Friday. Riccardi's story reduces the issue to a direct and simple issue of credibility as to whether Tremaglio told Riccardi on June 27 before he was discharged that he had signed a union card as he testified or whether he had furnished no reason for his absence thereby causing Riccardi to fire him as Riccardi testified. It appears to me improbable that an employee who had enjoyed an excellent relationship with Superintendent Riccardi, as Tremaglio obviously had, would have merely shrugged silently when asked the perfectly normal and appropriate question concerning his absence on a day on which he admittedly had promised to come in to work. I cannot credit Riccardi's testimony that, under these circumstances, Tremaglio stood mute. On the, other hand, I consider it entirely conceivable, in view of the same personal relationship which led Riccardi to give Tremaglio four raises in a period of 6 months and to waive the Employer's rules concerning vacation pay to put money in Tremaglio's hands on June 23, that Tremaglio would have confided in Riccardi that he had signed a union card on the preceding Friday by way of explanation. Accordingly, I credit Tremaglio's version of the conversation and find that the cause of Riccardi's anger was not solely that he had been absent, but that he had been absent because he signed a union card. Therefore, because this resulted in Riccardi's discharging Tremaglio, I find that the discharge is violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act." IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the Respondent's operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices , I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Respondent having discharged Andrew Mezzi, Arthur Arnold, and Lawrence Tremaglio because of their union activities, I shall recommend that Respondent offer them immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by Respondent's discrimination against them, by payment to them of a sum of money equal to that which they normally would have earned as wages from the date of their discharge to the date when, pursuant to the Recommended Order herein contained, Respondent shall offer reinstatement, less their net earnings during said period. Said backpay shall be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289; interest on backpay shall be computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. I shall also recommend that Respondent be ordered to make available to the Board or its agents, upon request, payroll and other records to facilitate the checking of the amount of earnings due. In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices committed, the commission of similar and other unfair labor practices reasonably may be anticipated, and, in fact, the commission of similar and other unfair labor practices, although not alleged, was shown. I shall therefore recommend that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from, in any manner, infringing upon rights guaranteed to employees by Section 7 of the Act. Upon the foregoing conclusions of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By engaging in the conduct set forth in the section entitled "Interference, Restraint, and Coercion" to the extent therein found, and by the interrogation and threats to Andrew Mezzi at the time of his discharge, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. By discriminating with regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Andrew Mezzi, Arthur Arnold, and Lawrence Tremaglio, thereby discouraging the free exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act and discouraging membership in or activities for the above-named labor organization, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in the case, I recommend that the Respondent, Ulbrich Stainless Steels, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: " Corroboration for this conclusion is found in the credited testimony of McConnell that in his August conversation with Richard Ulbrich, Ulbrich substantially admitted the discriminatory nature of Tremagho's discharge ULBRICH STAINLESS STEELS (a) Discouraging membership in United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discharging or otherwise discriminating against employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (b) Interrogating employees in any manner violative of the provisions of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. (c) Warning or threatening its employees with discharge or other reprisals if they joined or assisted the Union. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization provided in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Andrew Mezzi, Arthur Arnold, and Lawrence Tremaglio immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to seniority or other rights or privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimination against them in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the section above entitled "The Remedy." (b) Post at its plant in Wallingford, Connecticut, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."15 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 1, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent's representatives, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including each of Respondent's bulletin boards. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Trial Examiner's Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply with the foregoing Recommended Order.ls IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that unless , within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Trial Examiner's Decision, the Respondent shall notify the said Regional Director, in writing, that it will comply with the foregoing Recommended Order, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order directing Respondent to take the aforesaid action. 15 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 States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order " i6 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 139 Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership in United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of our employees, by discharging or otherwise discriminating against our employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT interrogate employees in any violative manner or warn or threaten them with discharge or other reprisals if they join or assist the Union. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of, their rights protected by the Act. WE WILL offer to Andrew Mezzi, Arthur Arnold, and Lawrence Tremaglio immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of our discrimination against them. All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining, members in the above-named Union or any other labor organization. ULBRICH STAINLESS STEELS, INC. (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) Note: We will notify any of 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, 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 provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 20th Floor, John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Cambridge and New Sudbury Streets, Boston , Massachusetts 02203, Telephone 223-3300.