Joanna Western Mills Co.

932 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Joanna Western Mills Company , Kaywood Division and International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO. Cases 7-CA-5708 and 7-CA-5708(2) July 30, 1967 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND ZAGORIA On May 23, 1967, Trial Examiner Benjamin B. Lipton issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en- gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in support thereof. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases 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 Respondent's ex- ceptions and brief, and the entire record in the cases 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 Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Joanna Western Mills Company, Kaywood Division, Benton Harbor, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs , shall take the action set forth in the Trial Ex- aminer's Recommended Order. ' The Respondent excepts to the credibility resolutions of the Trial Ex- aminer It is the Board's established policy not to overrule a Trial Ex- aminer's resolutions as to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Such a conclusion is not warranted here Standard Drti Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544, 545, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3) TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION the above-captioned Respondent committed certain violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I All parties were represented at the hearing and were afforded full opportu- nity to present relevant evidence and to argue orally on the record . A brief filed by Respondent has been duly considered. Upor. the entire record in the case , and from my obser- ,,ation of the demeanor of the witnesses on the stand, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of interior moveable louvre shutters and re- lated products at various plants in the State of Illinois and at its Kaywood Division in Benton Harbor, Michigan; only the latter facility is involved in this proceeding. Dur- ing the calendar year 1965, Respondent's Kaywood Divi- sion had a direct inflow in interstate commerce of goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 and a direct outflow in interstate commerce of manufactured products valued in excess of $50,000. Respondent admits, and I find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Issue:, The General Counsel alleges in substance that Re- spondent, by certain supervisors, threatened union stewards with transfer from their department because they were attempting to administer the collective- bargaining contract; threatened union officials with future difficulties as employees because they were allegedly processing too many grievances; formally reprimanded a union officer for engaging in a protected activity in policing the contract; and coercively inter- rogated an employee concerning information given to a Board agent investigating charges in the instant proceeding. B. Background For 12 or 13 years, Local 940 of the Union has represented a production and maintenance unit of em- ployees at Respondent's Kaywood Division. The existing contract for a 3-year term runs until July 15, 1967. The number of employees in the bargaining unit ranges from 180 to 220 on all shifts. Officers in the local union elected from employee ranks consist of president, vice president, financial secretary, and recording secretary. In addition, there are nine elected stewards (although article IV, sec- tion 10, of the contract provides that the number of STATEMENT OF THE CASE BENJAMIN B. LIPTON, Trial Examiner: This case was heard on February 1, 1967, in St. Joseph, Michigan, upon a complaint issued by the General Counsel alleging that ' In Case 7-CA-5708, the Union's charge was filed on September 13 and amended on December 27, 1966 In Case 7-CA-5708( 2), the charge was filed on December 29, 1966 The consolidated complaint was issued on January 20, 1967 166 NLRB No. 94 JOANNA WESTERN MILLS CO. 933 stewards shall not exceed 10 percent of the total comple- ment in the unit). It is also specified, in article VII, sec- tion 8, that the size of the employee bargaining committee for future contract negotiations shall be limited to five members. Under article IV, section 10, the elected of- ficers and committeemen are entitled to top plantwide seniority, and the stewards are accorded top departmen- tal seniority. The contract also states , under article VII, the following: Section 6. Whenever it is necessary for meetings to be held between Union officials, stewards, or em- ployees and the Company, that are of a nature arising out of Company operations, or in taking up grievances as set forth herein, such meetings will as far as possible be held during working hours. Pay for such meetings shall be at the straight time base rate of the employees who participate in such meetings. Section 7. Whenever a Union officer, a steward or employee wishes to take up Union business on Com- pany time and property between themselves, such Union business shall be of a nature arising out of Company operations which come under the terms of this Agreement. When it is necessary for such Union Officer, or steward or employee to stop his work or leave his job to take up such Union business , he shall obtain permission to do so. Employees will not lose base pay for time spent in such meetings. General Manager Roland J. Beckman testified, in ef- fect, that Respondent' s relations with the Union were "very harmonious" until May 1966, when Local Pres- ident Bobby Clark took office, and thereafter the number of grievances filed and the amount of working time spent by union agents on grievances increased sig- nificantly. It is found that Clark was elected president in March 1966, and that in the preceding 3 or 4 months he served as vice president. The parties stipulated that, as a result of a survey from company records, Personnel Manager John Andrews would testify that between March 11, 1966, and January 18, 1967, there were 68 grievances filed (pursuant to the contract), of which 57 "were disposed of in the grievance procedure," 2 in ar- bitration, and 9 are pending. There is no indication as to how many of these grievances were filed by Respondent or by individual employees, and no comparable figures were adduced for any period preceding March 11, 1966. C. Supervisor Trowbridge The agreement (article XIII, section 2) states that ".. . no foreman will spend time on any work that ordinarily would be done by any workers within the bargaining unit, except for instruction, experimental, or emergency." Under Step A of the contract grievance procedure-"Any employee who has a grievance may discuss it with the foreman or request his department steward to discuss it with the foreman ...." Rob Roy Davis, in mid-June 1966,2 saw James Trow- bridge, his foreman in the paint department, performing work in the spray booth. In his capacity of union steward at the time, he approached Trowbridge and told him to "quit working," which Trowbridge did. Later in the day, Trowbridge came up to Davis at his work station and told him that if he did not keep his steward job he would be out of the paint department, because he was a "trouble maker." About a month thereafter, -when Davis was no longer steward, he was transferred at a lower pay rate to the sample department as a result of a reduction in force. The transfer is not alleged as a violation. David Horton was elected steward in the paint depart- ment in the latter part of August. In early September, he observed Trowbridge at work "rubbing shutters" and asked him "please not to work." Trowbridge agreed to stop.3 Shortly thereafter, Trowbridge told Horton that if [he] kept doing, acting and doing the way [he] was doing, [he] was going to end up like Rob Davis."4 No merit whatever is found in Respondent's arguments that Trowbridge was "justified" in telling Davis that he was a "trouble maker," as Davis had "no authority to direct his supervisor to do or not to do anything ...." Trowbridge's statements to Davis and Horton clearly im- plied threats of reprisals and otherwise tended to restrain them in exercising a union function, sanctioned by con- tract, and of a nature which is fundamentally protected under Section 7 of the Act. Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1), as alleged.6 D. Supervisor Goff On September 21, William Johnson, a union steward, was on a committee with other union officials being inter- viewed by a Board agent investigating charges in the present proceeding. He had obtained permission from his foreman, Carl Goff, and from Superintendent Harry Coupe to attend this meeting away from the plant. In the course of the next day, Goff asked Johnson-what was going on at the meeting, and what did they talk about all day over there. Johnson testified that, at one point, he re- marked, in intended jest, that someone at the meeting "said get rid of Carl Goff," and that later, Goff told him, "if I had said anything to get him in trouble he would be after my ass." Johnson promptly reported the latter's statement to John Genovese, local union vice president. Johnson believed that he and Goff were "pretty good friends." Foreman Goff admitted that he had asked Johnson "something about how did the meeting come out, or what happened," but did not remember or denied the remainder of Johnson's testimony.? He was aware of the purpose of the meeting, as it "was common knowledge in the shop at the time that the Labor Board was checking in on something." Goff had been president of Local 940 for a year and a half until he was succeeded by Clark in 2 All dates are in 1966 unless otherwise specified J No grievance was submitted in this instance On a second occasion of such alleged offense by Trowbridge, otherwise unspecified, Horton filed a grievance, which was early resolved upon receiving an answer to the charge. " The foregoing is based on credited testimony of Davis and Horton. 5 Trowbridge's remark to Horton, in effect that if he continued to protest when Trowbridge performed work in violation of the contract he would "end up like Rob Davis," was plainly coercive in purport, irrespec- tive of whether in fact Davis was properly transferred out of the depart- ment. 6 In the perspective of this issue, wherein stewards sought informally to protest a supervisor's violation of the contract, the observation may be noted of Respondent's strenuous objection to allegedly excessive grievance activity by union agents , infra. 7 As paraphrased in questions by Respondent 's counsel. 308-926 0-70-60 934 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD March 1966. He testified that "when you see the battle flags going, you want to go on," and that he had asked the questions of Johnson out of curiosity "just for him- self,- and not for the Company or the Union." I am disposed to credit Johnson, although I believe that Goff testified in good faith to the questions in the manner they were put to him by counsel. In any event, the crux of the issue here lies in Goff s admitted interrogation of Johnson concerning the Board agent's investigative con- ference with representatives of the Union. Goff s previ- ous capacity as an elected union official, with recent ac- cess to the confidence of employees, provides all the more reason for his desisting from probes of employee union activities. As a foreman, he was now of course a representative or agent of Respondent, to whom he owed primary loyalty on issues of labor management relations. His testimony after the event as to his subjective intent in questioning Johnson, i.e., that he was motivated solely by his personal curiosity, must be regarded as immaterial. Pretrial investigative statements taken by a Board agent necessarily reveal the employees' union attitudes and activities, and also may divulge the conduct of super- visors toward the union and its adherents. They should be free of any inquisitive interest by the employer. Knowledge by the employee that statements made by him will be revealed to the employer can only exert an inhibi- tory effect on his essential cooperation in the Board's pretrial investigation conducted in the public interest. It is well-established Board policy, with judicial approval, to maintain the confidentiality of such pretrial investiga- tive statements and to proscribe as unlawful an em- ployer's interrogations into such matters." Accordingly, I find the alleged violation of Section 8(a)(1) E. General Manager Beckman As earlier noted, in March, Bobby Clark began his elec- tive office of local union president. His regular job was that of journeyman machinist in the toolroom under Su- pervisor Art Bandurski. In the morning on August 12, while they were in- vestigating a grievance in the fixed louvre department, Clark and Genovese, local vice president, were'told by Personnel Manager Andrews not to spend too much time on the floor, as someone very important (Beckman) was walking around. After lunch, Beckman approached Clark at work in the wood mill. Clark testified that Beckman, appearing very angry, "begin to shake his finger at me and told me he was sick and tired of all the God damn grievances we were turning in. He said they had better stop. You are heading for serious trouble ... you un- derstand I mean this . You had better stop here and now, . Beckman then walked away. Thereupon, Clark ob- tained appropriate permission to take up union business and proceeded to the toolroom to speak to Genovese and Chief Steward John Manning. In the toolroom, he en- countered Genovese engaged in discussion with Person- nel Manager Andrews and Foreman Bandurski. Clark described to Genovese and Andrews the incident which had just occurred with Beckman and indicated that he wanted to write a grievance on it. About this time, Beckman emerged from a nearby office and came up to the group. He asked Andrews "what the hell is going on," and Andrews explained that they were having a little meeting in regard to labor management relations. Beckman then said that there were too damn many of these little meetings going on, that he was sick and tired of people running up to him claiming machinery was down while maintenance men were walking around and taking up union business , and that he wanted it stopped "here and now." As Genovese testified, "then Clark asked Mr. Beckman, ... what were you referring to in the wood mill when you chewed me out, and he said everything in general, especially all of these damn grievances you guys have been turning in , and you two running around the shop stirring up trouble, and he said I am sick and tired of it, and I want it stopped, and he pointed his finger at Clark and he said if not you are in serious trouble, and if we have to we will take it all the way to Washington." After Beckman left, Andrews re- marked to Genovese that he hoped the Union had the good sense not to write a grievance on it. Genovese sug- gested a meeting "as soon as possible" between the Union and management , including the presence of Clark and Beckman. Andrews agreed, but such meeting never materialized. The foregoing substantially reflects the testimony of Clark and Genovese. Andrews was not called. Relating to the immediate issues, Beckman's account contained no denials or direct contradictions of the versions of Clark and Genovese. Describing the earlier conversation with Clark on August 12, Beckman testified that he said "we were all going to be in trouble if he was not more judicious with the way he handled his various union activities because the wood mill and various other departments were being subjected to an undue amount of down time which resulted directly from he and other people being missing from their jobs, ... Mr. Clark told me he was going to show me how the union should have been run two or three years ago." Concerning the subsequent con- versation that day, Beckman indicated that his statement was directed to Personnel Manager Andrews (albeit in the presence of Clark and Genovese), and he admitted that he said, among other things, that he wanted some of this "tomfoolery" stopped. As a defense, Beckman devoted his testimony mainly to a personal attack against Clark for alleged overzealousness in carrying out his union duties. Beckman adverted, inter alia, to Clark's at- titude in past grievance negotiations in which Clark threatened to go to arbitration if the questions were not determined in Clark's way. And he testified to oral com- plaints which he heard from supervisors concerning con- duct of Clark and other union officials, vaguely defined, and occurring broadly during the period since Clark as- sumed office. Clark and Genovese are credited to the ex- tent of any conflict. In substance, the allegations of the complaint are that Beckman unlawfully threatened union agents with reprisal for engaging in activities protected under the Act. The General Counsel relies upon the statements of Beckman made on the two occasions in the afternoon of August 12, as above described. In both conversations, Beckman referred generally to all the grievances being filed by the Union and to the meetings and activities around the shop in which the employee union officials were "stirring up trouble." In an angry and menacing 8 Texas Industries, Inc v NLRB , 336 F 2d 128, 133 (C A 5), Surprenant Manufacturing Co v. N L R B, 341 F 2d 756, 762 (C A 6), N L R B v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 341 F.2d 750, 752 (C A. 6), cert de- nied 382 U S 830 JOANNA WESTERN MILLS CO. 935 manner, he said that he wanted such conduct stopped "here and now," and that, if it were not stopped, Local President Clark, in particular, would be in "serious trou- ble." This cannot be regarded as merely an expression of management concern over what it considered to be exces- sive grievance activity and a prediction that its con- tinuance would result in serious trouble relating to mat- ters of production. Rather, it was pointedly addressed to Clark as an employee and impliedly to the officers in his administration. And as these officials were acting pur- suant to grievance procedures and provisions in the con- tract, the concerted rights of all unit employees were at stake.9 In the circumstances, I find that these union offi- cials could reasonably have construed Beckman's re- marks as threatening them personally with punitive action concerning their job security or conditions. The right to present grievances by employees, or on their behalf by union stewards or officials, is expressly protected in Sections 7 and 9(a) of the Act The protec- tion of such right is not affected by the merit or lack of merit in the grievance involved,10 nor by the number of grievances raised or presented, pursuant to contract or otherwise." Concerted activity engaged in by employees for their mutual aid and protection "often create a disturbance in the sense that they create dissatisfaction with the status quo." 12 Of course this does not mean that, while engaged in such protected activity, employees are immunized from the reasonable regulations and plant discipline of the employer.13 However, the disciplinary measures taken against such activity must be reasonably based on actual misconduct of the charged employees and cannot turn upon the employer's asserted beliefs or good faith. l'' If during Clark's term of office as local union president the grievances presented by the union agents were con- sidered by Respondent as excessive or frivolous, there were procedures in the contract to dispose of them with dispatch; and Respondent also had available an orderly forum of raising the general problem in consultation directly with the bargaining representative The record does not establish that the number of grievances filed were excessive, nor can such a determination be made without a subjective judgement of the content of each grievance. Equally without merit are Respondent's defen- sive allegations that Clark and other union officers held too many meetings in the shop and engaged in improper conduct in the course of their union functions. The con- tract specifically requires that employees obtain permis- sion during working hours to attend to union business. In no instance (including that involved in the issue with Su- pervisor Bandurski discussed infra), was it shown that Clark or other union agents were remiss in this require- ment during the times material herein.15 In the case of any employee breach of the contract or of plant rules, Respondent certainly had the recourse of appropriate discipline based upon the merits of the alleged miscon- duct at the time it occurred. The testimonial charges of misconduct against Clark consist for the most part of a vague generalized background, predicated upon hearsay and opinionated reports. In any event, I find that these charges do not justify Beckman's broadside attack upon the grievance activities of the local union , and his sub- stantive threats directed at Clark and other union officers in their capacity as employees. I conclude therefore that the evidence substantiates this allegation of the com- plamt.'s F. Supervisor Bandurski In substance, the issue involved here reduces itself simply to the question of whether Local President Clark failed to obtain permission to engage in union business on working time as to justify a written reprimand by Bandur- ski, toolroom foreman. Considerable detail was placed in the record, all of which need not be recited to resolve the issue . The reprimand states: Date: December 13, 1966 TO - Bob Clark. This morning at 7:45 A.M., you violated Article VII, Section 7 of our Contract Agreement. You will recall you asked permission to use the telephone, this was granted. A few minutes later, you came through the Tool Room - past me - and burst into Mr. Korbelic's office. You made no attempt to ask permission to enter Mr. Korbelic's office to discuss Union or any other business. Any further such actions will result in disciplinary action. /s/ Art Bandurski About 7 a.m. on December 13, Clark observed Red Green, recently retired under Respondent's retirement plan, enter the toolroom with his tools and learned from Green that he was coming back to work. Clark testified that he thereupon requested and was granted permission by Bandurski to see William Korbelic, the chief engineer. Shortly thereafter, he saw Green and Korbelic walk into the latter's office and he followed them in; Bandurski came in "a little bit later." Clark indicated he had a few questions to ask, concerning Green's presence in the shop, and Korbelic said "okay shoot." During the discus- sion a sharp disagreement developed," following which Korbelic ordered Clark to leave his office and get back to work. After leaving Korbelic's office, Clark obtained per- mission from Bandurski to use the telphone, made his 0 Farmers Union Cooperative Marketing Assn, 145 NLRB 130 10 E.g, Salt River Valley Water Users' Association v N L R B., 206 F 2d 325, 329 (C A 9), Top Notch Manufacturing Company, Inc , 145 NLRB 429,432 " Farmers Union Cooperative Marketing Assn , supra x Salt River Valley Waters Users' Association v N L R B , supra 13 Mitchell Transport, Inc, 152 NLRB 122, 123 t" lbid Also, Cusano d/b/a American Shuffleboard Co v N L R B 190 F 2d 898 (C A. 3) "To adopt [the employer's] view would materially weaken the guarantees of the Act, for the extent of employees' protected rights would be made to vary with the state of the employer's mind " ld at 902 1' Clark testified that he spent about 10 percent of his total working time on union business 16 See, e g., Harding Glass of Missouri, Inc, 158 NLRB 1366, Pacific Electncord Company, 153 NLRB 521, Electric Motors and Spe- cialties, Inc , 149 NLRB 131, Ryder Tank Lines, Inc , 135 NLRB 936 11 In br.ef, Korbelic's position was that Green was recalled as a techni- cal adviser, which Clark disputed since Green had reported with a full tray of tools Clark insistently argued that Respondent was employing Green to undercut the overtime work of the employees , while Korbelic main- tained that Respondent was acting properly pursuant to the contract 936 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD calls, and returned to work. At 3:55 p.m. that day, Ban- durski handed Clark the written reprimand, as above described. Chester Ward, a toolroom employee, testified in cor- roboration of Clark. In the early morning on December 13, he overheard Clark's conversation with Bandurski. Clark said he wanted to see Korbelic, and "Bandurski said he isn't in the office, he is out there, and waved his hand toward the shop, and Mr. Clark took off down the way he waved." Bandurski testified that Clark had only asked him to use the phone, and that after using the phone, Clark went into Korbelic's office Neither Kor- belic nor Bandurski raised any question concerning Clark's permission to be present while Clark was in Kor- belic's office. The issue turns upon crediblity, which I resolve in favor of Clark and Ward. Thus, apropos the Red Green affair, Clark was engaged in a union function of seeking information from management regarding a possible breach of the contract or a grievance. He had in fact ob- tained appropriate permission to leave his work, as I have found. It follows, therefore, that he was unlawfully repri- manded for engaging in an activity which was protected under the Act. Accordingly, the alleged violation of Sec- tion 8(a)(1) is sustained. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent described in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Mills Company, Kaywood Division, Benton Harbor, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Interrogating employees concerning statements and information given to a Board agent during a pretrial investigation , in a manner constituting interference, restraint , or coercion within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. (b) Threatening employees with reprisal or issuing reprimands or warnings to employees affecting their job security or conditions because they engaged in protected activities under the Act. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative actions designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Rescind the reprimand issued to Bobby Clark on December 13, 1966, expunge from his personnel files any matter relating thereto adversely affecting his job securi- ty or conditions, and directly notify him that such action has been taken by Respondent. (b) Post at its Benton Harbor, Michigan, plant, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 18 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being duly signed by Respondent, shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main- tained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 19 Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices , I will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the cases , I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act 2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing em- ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 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 cases, I recommend that Respondent, Joanna Western 1 8 I n 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 Ap- peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order " 18 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, 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 Ex- aminer 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 em- ployees that: WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concern- ing statements and information given to a Board agent during any pretrial investigation , in a manner constituting interference , restraint, or coercion within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. JOANNA WESTERN MILLS CO. WE WILL NOT threaten employees with reprisal or issue reprimands or warnings to employees affecting their job security or conditions because they engaged in protected activities under the Act. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner inter- fere with, restrain , or coerce employees in the exer- cise of the right to self-organization, to form labor or- ganizations, to join or assist International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , to bargain collective- ly through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in any other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activi- ties. WE WILL rescind the reprimand issued to Bobby Clark on December 13, 1966 , expunge from his per- sonnel files any matter relating thereto adversely af- 937 fecting his job security or conditions, and directly notify him that such action has been taken by us. Dated By JOANNA WESTERN MILLS COMPANY, KAYWOOD DIVISION (Employer) (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 500 Book Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan 48226, Telephone 226-3244.