Merz Engineering Co.

MERZ ENGINEERING COMPANY 245 Miklos Sperling, an Individual, d/b/a Merz Engineer- ing Company, Special Products Division and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-AFL-CIO. Case 25-CA-2702 November 15, 1967 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND ZAGORIA On July 21, 1967, Trial Examiner Arthur E. Reyman 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 he cease and de- sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci- sion.The General Counsel filed a limited exception with respect to an alleged omission from the Trial Examiner's Conclusions of Law, and a brief in sup- port of the Trial Examiner's Decision. 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 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. In the absence of exceptions by the Respondent, the Board adopts the findings, con- clusions, and recommendations of the Trial Ex- aminer, with the limited modification noted herein.' 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 or- ders that the Respondent, his agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as herein modified. 1. Add the following as paragraph 1(b) of the Order, the present paragraph 1(b) being relettered 1(c): "(b) Threatening employees that he would close the Shadeland Avenue plant if he heard a union at- tempting to organize it, or otherwise threatening employees with reprisals to discourage their union membership or activities." - 2. Add the following to paragraph 2(a) of the Order: "Notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces." 3. Delete from paragraph 2(d) of the Trial Ex- aminer's Recommended Order that part thereof which reads "to be furnished" and substitute therefor "on forms provided ...." 4. Add the following paragraph to the notice to all employees as the second paragraph therein: WE WILL NOT threaten to close the Shadeland Avenue plant if we hear that a union is attempting to organize that plant, or otherwise threaten our em- ployees with reprisals to discourage their union membership or activities. I The General Counsel's exception relates to the apparently inadver- tent failure of the Trial Examiner to make a conclusion of law and recom- mend a remedy with regard to his finding that Sperling threatened to close the Shadeland Avenue plant if he heard of a union attempting to organize the plant We find, in agreement with the General Counsel, that Sperling's threat violated Section 8(a)(I) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and have appropriately revised the Trial Examiner's Order and Notice to All Employees TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION ARTHUR E. REYMAN, Trial Examiner: On January 17, 1967, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-AFL-CIO, herein sometimes called the Union, filed a charge against Miklos Sperling, an in- dividual, d/b/a Merz Engineering Company, Special Products Division, herein sometimes called the Company or the Respondent, the basis of the charge being that the Respondent "has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices" within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et seq., herein called the Act. Thereafter, on March 20, 1967, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, on behalf of the Board, by the Regional Director for Region 25, pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Act, and the Board's Rules and Regulations Series 8, as amended, Section 105.15, issued a complaint and notice of hearing against the Respondent, alleging that Respondent had engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Respondent filed timely answer to the complaint, effec- tively denying that it had engaged in or was engaging in the unfair labor practices set forth in the complaint. Pursuant to notice, this case came on to be heard at In- dianapolis, Indiana, on May 10, 1967, and was closed on the following day. At the hearing, the General Counsel and the Respondent each was represented by counsel and the Charging Party, the Union, was represented by an In- ternational representative. Each party was afforded full opportunity to call and examine witnesses, to cross-ex- amine witnesses, to present evidence relevant to the is- sues of the case, to engage in oral argument, and to file briefs. Briefs have been filed on behalf of the General Counsel and the Respondent and have been carefully considered. From my observation of the witness, and upon the whole record in the case, I make the following: 168 NLRB No. 37 246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent is now , and has been at all times material herein , a sole proprietorship engaged in the manufacture of machine tools, aircraft parts, and defense materials. In the course and conduct of its operations it maintains plants in Indianapolis , Indiana, including one on Shadeland Avenue. The Respondent , during the period immediately preceding the issuance of the com- plaint which period is representative at all times material herein , manufactured, sold, and shipped from its Indi- anapolis plants finished products valued in excess of $50,000 to points outside the State of Indiana; and during the same period of time Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations , manufactured and sold equipment and products valued in excess of $50,000 to the United States Government for use in the National Defense . Respondent is now , and has been at all times material herein , an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-AFL-CIO, is, and has been at all times material herein , a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The Issues The complaint alleges and the answer is intended to deny that since or about January 11, 1967,' and continu- ing to date , the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced and is interfering with, restrain- ing, and coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by having threatened to discharge and otherwise discriminate against em- ployees for engaging in union and concerted activities; by ejecting employees from the Shadeland Avenue plant because they engaged in union and concerted activities; by having discriminatorily promulgated and enforced a rule prohibiting solicitation and distribution of literature on behalf of the Union on Respondent's Shadeland Avenue property; by having discriminatorily refused to reinstate certain employees upon their unconditional offer to return to their former or substantially equivalent positions of employment after such employees have ceased work concertedly and went on strike; and by discharging , refusing to reinstate or reemploy , and con- tinuing to refuse to reinstate or reemploy, eight discharged employees because they were engaged in union activities or joined or assisted the Union or en- gaged in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and mutual aid or protection. The primary questions to be answered here are whether a walkout on January 11 was protected con- certed activity under Section 7 and the subsequent All dates hereinafter mentioned are for the year 1967 unless otherwise specifically noted 2 Newman testified that the product manufactured at the plant is a discharges of eight employees were discriminatory within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. By amendment to the complaint allowed at the hearing , it must be de- cided too, whether the Respondent by its owner threatened , on a day between November 9 and 19, 1966, to close the Shadeland Avenue plant and to replace em- ployees if they joined , supported , or assisted the Union. Plant Organization The Special Products Division of the Company, located at its Shadeland Avenue plant, began operations in the late summer of 1966, and at the time of the filing of the charge herein employed some 80 persons at that plant. Roger Newman is vice president in charge of manufacturing and maintains his office at 200 South Hardy Street, some 12-1 /2 miles across town from the Shadeland Avenue plant and about 21 miles around the expressway. Joseph E . Stein is the plant manager of the Shadeland Avenue plant. Newman and Stein assumed their respective duties on December 19, 1966 . Other su- pervisors at this plant included Ed Egnell, Foremen Bob Reed , John McKenna, and Johnny Wilford ; and Francis Herbie in charge of quality control. On the basis of the testimony of Stein , one Roger Gayer, whose activities were mentioned during the course of this hearing, is not a supervisor. Operations at this plant include (I take it principally if not entirely) work performed under a Government defense contract,, a progress schedule calling for the shipment of about 3,000 units of products manufactured for use in connection with Viet Nam.2 Up until January 11 none of the employees of Respond- ent employed at the Shadeland Avenue plant was represented by a union, nor had any union made an effort to organize the plant employees . On that day, as alleged in the complaint , "certain employees ... ceased work concertedly and went on strike ...." The Cessation of Work On January 11 discontent among employees growing out of their failure to have received wage increases or shift differential pay resulted in a morning discussion between certain employees , who decided that after lunch they would leave their work in protest against working conditions and the failure of the Respondent to fulfill al- leged promises for night differential pay and pay raises. Testimony of certain employees to the effect that they were promised raises after 30 days' employment and a differential in pay if they worked at night , and that they never received such increases in pay, stand unrefuted upon the record . The Respondent apparently stands on the fact that increases promised employees at the time of their hire were not binding upon the Respondent as such because made by predecessors of Newman and Stein who had originally hired these employees. Patricia Warren testified that she first was employed around the first of September 1966, and continued in her employment until January 12. She said she was hired by one John Anderson who fixed her starting wage at a $1.65 per hour, informed her that within 90 days she would receive a 10-cent-an-hour increase , which she never bomb dispenser used on the bottom of airplane wings and that the Com- pany makes deliveries to several Army depots including one at Doyline, Louisiana, and another at Milan , Tennessee MERZ ENGINEERING COMPANY 247 received during the course of her employment. She worked from 7 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and also worked on Saturdays . Employee Mary Capps testified that she was employed on August 26, 1966, by John Anderson at a $1.65 per hour and at that time was informed by Ander- son that within 30 days she would receive an increase of 10 cents an hour , "and the rest of it was on my own merits." She testified that she was about the third among the women hired at the plant , worked on the day shift, was under the supervision of Don Roberts , a foreman, and that a few days before January 11, she had been ad- vised by Roberts that he had recommended her, together with Mrs. Warren , for an increase in wage and that "I was entitled to more than just a dime." Patricia Ann FreiJe testified that she was employed on or about September 20, 1966 , by John Anderson at an hourly rate of $1.65 with a promise of a 10-cent increase in 30 days. She, like Warren and Capps, worked a 7 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. stint , and worked on Saturday . Meda Amber Hillman testified that she started work on about November 1, 1966, was hired by a person named Paul for work on the night shift "and I signed a piece of paper that said a $1 .65 an hour , but he said that this is with the night bonus, it was an agreement he said everyone would receive it. And he also said that there would be a 15-cent raise in 30 days." She testified that she worked on the night shift for about 2 weeks at a $1 65 an hour , did not receive the 10-cent differential , was laid off by Foreman Egnell , who at the time told her that she was to be laid off because the night shift had been discontinued . After a 3- day layoff she was hired back by Cain , then plant manager, at $ 1.75 on daywork. Mrs. Avas Howard was employed on about October 10, 1966, being hired by one Paul, or Cain, plant manager , after referral by the Indiana State Employment Office, at a $1.65 an hour plus 10 cents an hour night premium. She testified that she was at that time told that she would receive a 15-cent raise at the end of 30 days. She worked nightwork for approximately 4 weeks, when she was informed by Egnell that she was being laid off; she expressed her unhappiness at being laid off; took the matter up with Cain, who told her that he did not know why she was being laid off, and instructed her to report at 8 a.m. on the following day, to be paid at a rate of a $1.65 an hour. She testified that she never had received the 10- cent differential for night work , although she had worked more than 30 days ; that she never had received the 15- cent hourly increase promised to her. Mrs. Sharon Ropp testified that she was employed on about September 25, 1966, by Bill Hudson , a supervisor at the main plant of the Company on Hardy Street, at a $1.65 an hour, to work from 7 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. In re- gard to her conversation with Hudson concerning wages she said- Well, I forget what he said to me, they were just starting the plant and they didn't have too many em- ployees. I started before a lot of these people got out there. And he said that there would be raises but he didn't say just when ; he just said when the plant got on its feet is about what it amounted to. That's not word for word. At the time of her discharge on January 12, she had received no increase in pay. There was a considerable amount of discontent among the employees other than their dissatisfaction with the failure of the Company to increase their wages, which they said had been promised to them . Sharon Ropp summed up the major matters which the employees com- plained about. She said that when she first was employed they had but one restroom for the ladies with one com- partment, and that although they later installed another one, the room always was flooded with water on the floor and the toilets were not maintained properly; that the machines in the plant which employees operated caused them difficulty ; that the plant was not properly heated: . and then they had, when I first went in there they kept the windows open all the time because they didn't have any ventilation over the alodine tanks and they had to keep the fumes out of there, and then they didn't get the fan in at first . At first they put up like a wooden shield to hold back the fumes, and later on they eventually put in fans , and they put in the rest of the alodine tanks and they put in fans. Then for a while you were gagging in cold, and the dust would get down your throat. There were complaints about there being only one drink- ing fountain located in the office, and the opening of doors to allow the ingress and egress of trucks , which allowed cold air to pour in where the girls were working during the winter season . The record shows, by testimony other than that of this witness, that there was widespread com- plaint caused by physical discomfort and poor working conditions. On January 11, employees Sandy Thomas, Frances Newman , and Fayetta Adair initiated a movement among the employees , urging them to leave their work because of dissatisfaction with wages and other working condi- tions. Foreman Reed reported to the plant manager, Stein , that the employees desired a meeting with Stein to discuss their grievances , whereupon Stein called Vice President Newman , at the Company's Hardy Street plant , informed him of the situation and received New- man's authority to promise all employees who had been in the plant for at least 90 days a 5 -cent hourly increase in pay. The discussion among the employees occurred be- fore lunch on that day ; and the employees , after lunch, decided to stage a walkout in protest of working condi- tions and the failure of the Company to grant promised in- creases. When Avas Howard was asked if she intended to join the walkout, she suggested that either Miklos Sperling, the owner, or Stein , be given a chance to talk to the em- ployees. When Foreman Reed was told by Howard that the Company could be expected to meet trouble if the meeting with Stein was not arranged, a meeting with Stein was set up for 3:30 that afternoon. After Reed told Howard that Stein would meet the employees at 3:30 that afternoon , other employees expressed a suspicion that Stein intended to have them clock out from work at 3:30, that being the end of the 8-hour day. Consequently, most of the employees called at Stein's office at 2:30 p . m. when Mrs. Howard, at the suggestion of other employees, presented their grievances to Stein , and suggested the for- mation of a bargaining committee to present the em- ployees' grievances to the Company . According to Stein, he was told that employee Annie Mason had said that all the employees wanted to talk to him and that he told the leadman to tell the employees he would speak to them at 3:30. However , that may be, some 70 or more employees came to Stein 's office at approximately 2:30 p .m., after which Stein explained that while he could not speak for prior supervisors, he had the authority to announce a 5- cent increase in pay. In connection with the events of the morning of Janua- 248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ry 11, Newman testified that at approximately 1 p.m. he had been called by Stein who had informed him that the employees at the plant wanted to have a meeting to discuss raises, wanted to know what steps he intended to take and what information he could give Stein concerning raises, that he told Stein that he would call him back; and later he did and informed Stein that the Company would grant each employee a 5-cent-an-hour increase if they had been working there for a period of 90 days or more, and that he would schedule the proposed wages over a period of weeks in January. After that, he said, Stein called him back a little after 2:30 p.m., said he had had a meeting with the employees, that the general trend of the meeting was that they were unhappy with what Stein had told them, that they were promised 10-cent to 25-cent-an-hour increases and that Stein had informed him, Newman, that if he did not come out to the plant within a half hour's time the employees were going to walk out at 3:30. New- man said he told Stein he wanted a few minutes to think about the situation and would call him back; subsequently he did return Stein's call and told him "that at the present time the best we could do for the employees was give them a nickel an hour raise, and if they decided to walk out at 3:30 to let them go, but to inform them that we would open the doors for work tomorrow at 7 o'clock in the morning." That evening, according to Newman, he and Stein met with their attorney, and upon his advice considered the actions of the employees to be a walkout or form of a strike, and he decided that no action could be taken at that time; then it was decided that "we would call a meeting in the morning of all the employees and discuss the management position on the matter to all the em- ployees." Newman said that on the following morning he arrived at the Shadeland Avenue plant about 6:40 a.m., asked Stein to call the supervisors in the office, and then told the supervisors present (Stein, Roberts, Reed, McKenna, Egnell, Wilford, and Herbie) to tell the em- ployees that there would be a meeting at 7:15 a.m. in the quality control room. On January 11, after the afternoon meeting with Stein, employees including Sandy Thomas, Frances Newman, and Fayetta Adair talked to other employees, mentioned their dissatisfaction with the result of the meeting, and urged the employees to clock out. At that time Mrs. Howard thought that the employees should first talk to Newman or Sperling before leaving, that she thought Stein was a fair man and she did not believe the em- ployees were being fair to him since he had been plant manager for a comparatively short time. When Stein learned that employees were not working he walked out into the plant, and observed four or five girls at the bur- ring table who were not at work. He testified that when he approached the table, Carla Marcum told him that the employees needed a 10-cent raise since 5 cents was not enough, and Mrs. Howard informed him that the em- ployees were going to walk out if they did not receive a 10-cent raise. Stein replied that he did not have authority to give the 10-cent increase but would talk to Newman; Mrs. Howard, he said, informed him that if Newman was not at the Shadeland Avenue plant in half an hour, the employees would walk out. It was then that Stein again called Newman, who said that he could not possibly be at the plant by 3:30 p.m. and that if the employees decided to leave to let them go. Stein was told to notify the em- ployees that the plant would be open for work at 7 a.m., January 12. After that, many of the employees left the plant approximately 3:30 p.m., 2 hours prior to their scheduled quitting time, a number of them leaving at that time because they would not have rides if they stayed until 5:30, while others left with the consent of their lead- men who had advised them that they might as well go home since there were not enough employees to run the plant. According to Stein, when he told the employees that the plant would be open the next day at the usual time, no employee indicated that he or she would not return for work on the following morning. The great majority of the employees clocked out about 3:30 p.m. As they were leaving the plant, Mrs. Howard told Foreman Egnell and Reed that the employees in- tended getting in touch with the Union and possibly the National Labor Relations Board. The testimony of Stein does not differ in material respect from the employees called to testify on behalf of the General Counsel and the Union. He said that on the morning of January 11, he was informed by one of the leadmen at approximately 1:05 p.m. that two of his girls had asked to get off early because all of the girls were going to walk out at 1:30, whereupon Stein asked him to go back and to try to find out what it was all about. Later the leadman, Reed, returned with Don Roberts, leadman in the alodine tank department, reported back to him, whereupon Stein telephoned Newman, and told him what was taking place. He requested Newman to give him a definite answer concerning wage policy and reminded Newman that "we had been waiting for it for approval from Mr. Sperling for this wage policy that was worked up, and I asked him if he couldn't give me approval so that I could talk to these girls at 1:30, and told him so far as I knew they were going to walk out at 1:30, so I needed to know pretty quick." Stein went on to relate that about 1:20 p.m. one of the leadmen informed him that employee Anna Mason had talked to him and said that she and the girls wanted to see him; Stein said that he would talk to the employees at 3:30 and asked the leadman to inform the other leadmen of the fact. Stein said that Newman called him back and told him that he, Stein, had the authority to grant the 5-cent increase based upon the schedule given to Stein, and that as to those who had al- ready been with the Company for 90 days, they would be given a 5-cent increase provided their foreman thought they merited it. This was about 2:30 in the afternoon; Stein was in the heat treating department, and said, "I suddenly looked up and noticed there wasn't anybody in the processing department. And so I started walking up through the plant and noticed the employees streaming into the front door. So I walked up, and pushed my way through, and asked everyone that was still on their way to come on in, so that they all could be in the office ahd hear whatever was going to be said." The employees crowded in the lobby just outside Stein's office door. He said that when he asked them what "this was all about, as though I didn't know," Avas Howard said "they were in there because they had been promised raises by former plant managers, that they were getting tired of it, and that they now wanted a definite answer from me." In reply Stein testified he said: Well, I said I was sorry they had jumped the gun because, Newman and I have been working ever since we arrived there on a wage policy, and that we had hoped to make an announcement this week, but they had beaten me to the punch. So I then told them about the 5-cent increase. First I said that I couldn't vouch for the statements that were made by former plant managers, I didn't know whether former plant MERZ ENGINEERING COMPANY 249 managers had promised them anything, or to whom, or how much, or if they had promised them. So then I related the wage schedule that we had formulated. And as I was reading it there was a murmur of dis- sent when I talked about a nickel. And then after I was completed Anna Mason said, "well, 10 cents isn't enough," that they had been promised more; Carla Marcum said that she has to pay a babysitter, she couldn't live on the wage; and I said, well, I was sorry and sympathetic, but at the moment this was felt the best the Company could do. And then I took a little time to tell them about the high cost of startup, and the fact that we were getting to the contract on a lower price, and that it was incumbent upon us to show what we could do, and to lower our price of producing this equipment because we knew there was going to be additional I.F.B.'s or invitations to bid on future contracts, and the same product, and if we could get our price down so that we were the suc- cessful bidder we could keep this operation going, and that our goal should be to make this a permanent division of the Merz Engineering Company. Also there were some complaints about the cold in the plant. And I took some time to talk about that, that the reason for the cold was not that we didn't have enough heat in the plant, but that the door had to be open for so long to take the material in and out, and that we were at that time waiting for a proposal on providing remote controls for opening and lowering the doors so that the towmotor driver when he was on his way out, before he got to the door he could press a button, open the door, as soon as he got out there would be another button out there so that he could close the door, and I felt that with this device it would eliminate the cold air blowing in, that anything else we did was really, it wouldn't solve the problem. Avas said that she had trouble with her tools. And I said, "we've only been here a short time, we've already made some changes, and we're cer- tainly going to keep after this, and we'll make all the changes that are necessary to allow you people to do a good job." Stein went on to testify that after the meeting and within the next half hour, after being informed that a group of girls were not working but were talking in the processing department at the burring tables, he went out immediately, observed only four or five girls who were not working but were talking, whereupon he asked "well, what's the trouble now - what's the problem." Marcum then said they would have to have 10 cents, that 5 cents was not enough, to which he replied that he had told them what the Company could give at the time, that Howard said "well, we're going to have to have 10 cents or every- one is going to walk out" and when he replied that he would have to talk to Newman, Howard replied that he had better talk to Newman and had better get him over there in half an hour. Stein pointed out that a half hour did not give him much time but he would convey the message to Newman and that when he left the girls Howard in- formed him in a loud voice to tell Newman that he had just half an hour to get over to the plant or "we're all walking out." He said he did call Newman, that Newman returned his call and told him that he, Newman, could not get to the plant in a half hour, and instructed Stein to in- form the employees that the Company could not grant a larger increase, and to inform the employees "that we would be open for work in the morning." At this point, ac- cording to Howard, Stein said that if she wanted to leave that she could, that he could not stop her, that she could punch out the timecard to which she replied that if she punched hers out she felt sure a lot more would do the same thing; that Stein replied he could not stop them, but the factory would be open for work the next morning. Howard said "and upon that, why, the other girls were standing around and heard him, they all starting circulat- ing, and they all walked out, down to the very last person in the plant left." Stein agreed that he told Howard that he hoped she would not walk out but if she did he could not stop her but that if she was going to stay she would have to work or have to punch out. Stein returned to the front office after this, and while he did not observe the em- ployees punching out he did notice people beginning to walk towards the timeclock area. Stein testified to a meeting he had with his leadmen that afternoon after the employees left: Well, I thought originally they had all left for the same reason, but after we had this discussion it became evident to me that there had been some mis- understanding between me and the group leaders and probably between the group leaders and some of their people, because they said many of their people for one thing had rides or riders and therefore they had to leave, they had no other way to go home, and other people came to their leadman and would say, "well what should we do? Most of the people are going home." So their foreman said, "well, there won't be enough here to run the department, so go ahead." On the afternoon of January 11, after leaving the plant, Mrs. Howard first communicated with a representative of the National Labor Relations Board and later with Lewis Strickland, an International representative of the Union. Howard and Sharon Ropp met that evening with Strickland at the home of Mrs. Howard, when Strickland furnished them with blank union authorization cards and agreed to meet with them at the plant on the following morning to assist them in their effort to organize the em- ployees of the plant. The Events of January 12 and Subsequent Discharge of Employees On the morning of January 12 Avas Howard drove to the parking lot at the plant where she met International Representative Strickland about 6.10 a.m. Sharon Ropp arrived about the same time as Howard, who had picked up another girl to bring to work. Howard, Ropp, and Meda Hillman then passed out union authorization cards and solicited signatures in the parking lot. Strickland left about 6:40 a.m. to return to and open the union hall. The girls continued passing out cards for perhaps 15 or 20 minutes, according to Howard, and while the girls were standing in the parking lot talking she observed Foreman Egnell come to the door, saw some of the employees start to go in, and was told by one of the girls that there was going to be a meeting "and so we all went in then at 7 o'clock." As Howard entered the plant, she held some union cards in her hand. She encountered Roger Gayer, he asked her if "we" had clocked in and she answered "no," whereupon he told them they had better stand by the timeclock. Included in the group were Meda Hillman, Sharon Ropp, Mary Capps, Patty Warren, and Patty Freije, none of whom had clocked in. They saw Sandy Thomas clock in; Thomas previously had signed a union 250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD card in the parking lot and after she had clocked in "she stood there smiling and tore her union card up." She is said to be the fiancee of Bob Reed . 3 Howard told Thomas she did not know why she bothered to sign the card and while the group of girls was standing there, she said, Stein and Newman appeared and told them if they were not going to work they would have to leave the premises; Howard said "we wanted to hear the meeting " and New- man replied "you are just a trouble maker ; leave the premises." Howard further testified that she agreed and as she started to leave, walking toward the door, Stein took her by one arm and Newman by the other and "shoved me out the door." She, together with Capps, Ropp , Warren , Freije, and Hillman left the plant and went to the union hall. Avas Howard and Sharon Ropp signed union authorization cards and gave them to Strickland at Howard' s home on January 11. Patricia Freije, Mary Capps, Patricia Warren , and Meda Hillman signed authorization cards on January 12 in the parking lot at the plant. Each employee authorized "UAW to represent me in collective bargaining," the obverse of the card carrying the statement , "this card will be used to secure recogni- tion and collective bargaining for the purpose of negotiat- ing wages , hours, and working conditions . YOU HAVE THE RIGHT UNDER FEDERAL LAW TO ORGANIZE AND JOIN A UNION BY JOINING THE UAW-AFL-CIO YOU HAVE THE SUPPORT OF ONE OF THE WORLD'S LARGEST UNIONS." As above noted , Sandy Thomas also signed a card on the morning of January 11, but tore it up in the presence of other employees. Sharon Ropp testified that she arrived at the plant about 6:30 a.m., that people start coming to work just shortly after , and she assisted in passing out cards for per- haps 15 or 20 minutes. She said that they had passed out almost all of the cards they were able to when Egnell came out, saw a group of girls standing in the parking lot, and said "anybody who is going to work today get in there and clock in . If you don't get in there and clock in and go to work , and stop milling around in the parking lot, you will be fired." He told them that he wanted them in the plant , not on the parking lot. Ropp testified , in connection with the occurrence at the timeclock, that: Well, we stood there by the timeclock , it was kind of crowded there, they had boxes piled up all around there, and there were several people there, and a lot of us stood there, and a lot did clock in , I seen several clock in, and we were all milling around wonder- ing-we heard in the parking lot there was going to be a meeting, and we were wondering about the meeting, we were just more or less milling around wondering what it was all going to be about. There was a few that went to where they were supposed to be. The work areas. We were standing there, and one of the guys in heat treat , Lyn [Howard ] come in, one of the guys in heat treat asked Lyn for one of those cards, I don't re- member if this was before Mr. Newman and Mr. Stein came out or after, but I think she was handing him a card when Mr. Stein or-whichever one seen 9 Thomas had been one who was most active on the morning of January I I in her urging the employees to take concerted action concerning their wages and working conditions 4 Avas Howard denied specifically that she solicited or obtained the her ... because they started escorting her out the door on either side of her, Mr. Newman was on the one side, Mr. Stein was on the other side. They were at a fast trot around the plant, they weren't running or anything but they were coming, they did come back there to the time clock pretty fast, and he waved his arm. Mr. Stein waved his arm and said , "get out; get out," and I don't remember if he said anything else , if he did I don 't remember, it was kind of confused with all the people there, but I know he said , "get out," I remember that real well. At the time Howard and the other employees , at least some 15 to 20 in number , were standing around the timeclock , Mrs. Howard had authorization cards in her hand. It appears that some employee notified Stein and Newman as she was out at the timeclock distributing union literature during working hours, and it was then that they went to the timeclock area where, they said, Howard was observed passing out a card to an employee. According to Stein , he told her that she would have to leave since she was not permitted to distribute union literature during working hours ; that Mrs. Howard ar- gued that she had a right to do this and began walking toward the main part of the plant ; that he told her that she would have to leave by the back door and began to escort her out of the plant. After Stein released her , Stein said that she passed out still another union card to an em- ployee who had come over from another area of the plant, whereas Howard said that on the way out one of the men in the alodine department asked for a card and she handed it to him. It was then that both Stein and Newman physi- cally escorted Mrs. Howard immediately out of the back door of the plant . Outside the plant , there was some discussion between Stein and Howard and she again as- serted , according to Stein , that she was within her rights and Stein replied that she could not distribute cards or union literature during working hours on the Respond- ent's premises, and told her she could go out on the public street if she desired . Seven of the employees who were standing near the timeclock area when all of the above occurred left the plant with Mrs. Howard. These employees included Sharon Ropp , Meda Hillman, Patricia Warren, Patricia Freije, Mary Capps , Carla Mar- cum, and Carolyn Farr.4 It appears that after the eight employees had left the plant four of them got into one automobile and three into another, while Mrs Marcum remained outside the second car talking to its occupants. James M. Arbuckle, at that time quality control manager and presently assistant program manager and director of quality control for Metz , testified that he ar- rived at the plant on January 12 at approximately 6:55 a.m., entered the plant by the front door , observed no em- ployee activity outside the plant, opened his office and then went out into the shop. He said that he noticed some of the employees were busy and some of them were not and that a few people were in the back end of the shop. He started toward the back end and met Newman coming through the receiving-inspection area, walked with him to the backdoor and noticed an automobile there with four women and a man in it and that he observed. signature of any cards while she was in the plant and that she gave a card to the employee who asked her for one , that while in the plant, the em- ployees gathered there did not discuss the Union but were talking about the meeting that was supposed to be held that morning MERZ ENGINEERING COMPANY 251 Carla was standing, as I recall, standing to the side of the car, and she was standing on one leg with the other leg resting on the edge of the car. And Mr. Newman spoke to her, and then asked - she kind of bent over actually, and asked the entire group, of course excluding the man, if they would reconsider and come into the shop and listen to the meeting. * Mrs. Ropp in particular said that, no, because they would be fired, and at this Mr. Newman said, "no, I assure you you will not be fired." * * * * * Mr. Newman turned around after he told the girls he would assure that they would not be fired, and started back into the building. And just right after that Carla said, "well,- come on Carolyn, let's go to the meeting," and Carla did there take her foot off the car and started in, and Carolyn followed her. Arbuckle recalled hearing Mrs. Howard ask Newman if they could assume that they were being fired because of their union activities or because they did not attend the meeting and because of union nature or something of that nature and that' Newman responded no, that they were not. He related: And he said specifically the girls that had come to the meeting, or had come to Shadeland Plant to go to work and did not go to work, and left without permis- sion , and without telling anyone that they were leav- ing, they were being terminated for that cause. How- ever, in Avas' particular case, she was being fired because she was passing out union cards on company property on company time, and would not discon- tinue doing that when she was asked to do so. On the way out of the parking lot, on their way to the union hall, the car driven by Howard encountered em- ployees Hess and Garten, who agreed to meet at the union hall with the other employees. The eight employees who were at the union hall conferred with Strickland, telling him they would be fired if they went back to the plant, and he telling them that they would not be fired, in- structing them to go back, punch in their cards, and at- tempt to organize the employees outside of company time. After waiting at the union hall for something over an hour, these employees returned to the plant, found their timecards removed from the rack, and they then (with the exception of Capps) met with Newman, Stein, and Ar- buckle in Stein's office, where they were told that they were terminated At the meeting called by Newman with the employees about 7:15 a.m. on January 12, he explained the position of the Company and his various problems connected with the operation of the Shadeland Plant encountered during the few months it had been in operation. He testified that nothing whatsoever was mentioned about the Union at 5 Mary Capps did not enter the plant after returning from the union hall because she became ill and remained outside 6 Robert L McLaughlin , an attorney of record in this case , testified with respect to an attempt by him to interview Avas Howard at her home on May 3, at approximately 7 30 p.m He said that he had informed Mrs Howard that he was an attorney for Mertz Engineering Company, that he was investigating an unfair labor practice case , and would like to ask her a few questions , that he told her she did not have to talk to him if she didn't want to, that Mrs Howard told him that she was having company that meeting, and it was not until after that that he, together with others, arrived at a decision with respect to the employees who had left the plant. After the meeting, he said, he decided to discharge the eight employees who had left the plant. This decision was made, he said, because of the important Government contract involved and because the Company felt it could not afford to have employees leave the plant when they felt like it without giving any explanation as to why they were leaving or whether or not they would return. During the course of his discussion with the em- ployees, Newman mentioned the war effort and ex- pressed his belief that when the employees left the plant that morning it was a form of sabotage. The employees, at this meeting, maintained they had left because they were told to leave. Their claim was denied by Stein and Newman, who said that the only person who was told to leave was Mrs. Howard. According to Newman and Stein, one of the girls, speaking for the others, said that the employees had been told that they would be discharged if they punched their cards in late; that New- man said this was not the fact, as shown, because two of the girls had returned to the plant when he had talked to them on the parking lot, and that the greater number of the employees had remained and punched in and were then engaged at work in the plant. At this same meeting, as above related, Newman placed the position of the Company on his expressed belief that when the em- ployees left the plant without permission they had en- gaged in a form of sabotage; that Howard was being discharged because she was passing out union literature on company premises during working hours in violation of a company rule and that she had objected to stopping the practice when told to do so. The other employees were informed that they were discharged because they left the plant without permission , had given no reason for leaving, and did not say where they were going or if and when they would return.5 Avas Howard, Meda Hillman, Sharon Ropp, Patricia Warren, Mary Capps, and Patricia Freije all testified at the hearing, and I accept them as most credible witnesses in connection with the facts above related.', I consider the following testimony of Howard, substan- tially undisputed, to be of significance.7 Q. [By Mr. Zasas] Once again, tell me what was said at this meeting. A. Well, Mr. Newman said that in his opinion that when we had walked out that we had committed an act of sabotage. And I don't believe it is sabotage. I think Mr. Newman needs to look up the meaning of the word sabotage. Q. That's what you told him at the time: A. Yes, I did say it. Q. All right. What else did he say9 A. And he said, well, it was a regrettable situa- tion, and an unpleasant task that he had to perform, that we hadn't told him that we were calling in a union. And I told him that we had let it be known, right then to which he replied he just wanted to ask a few questions and would take only a few minutes, that they walked into the house when Mrs Howard told him that it was all a matter of record "down at the Labor Board, I gave them a statement" and that after a few minutes Mrs Howard's husband told her she did not have to talk to anyone from Merz and if "this man is not from the Labor Board he can get out " Why McLaughlin was called as a witness I do not understand ' Cross-examination. 252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and I said we had asked for a bargaining committee which had been literally refused in a sense, and I said we had told the foreman that the union was going to be out there, so if he hadn't been notified of it it was his foreman's fault, not ours. Q. Now, how did this discussion of the union begin, can you tell me that? A. Well, Mr. Newman said he thought we was un- fair in calling in the union, that we hadn't told him anything about it. Q. And then you explained that you felt you had. A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, how did the subject of-when he said that he felt you were being unfair because you hadn't told him you were calling in the union, but that the first mention of the word Union in that meeting? A. Well- Q. Or had you said something about the union, that you had been to the union hall, or something of that sort? A. I don't recall whether I had or not. Q. Do you believe that just sort of out of thin air he said "it was unfair because you didn't tell me you were calling in the union?" A. Well, we were arguing, I mean you don't re- member everything exactly that you say when you're arguing, or how it comes about. Q. All right. You don't remember how that came about. A. No, I do not, sir. Q. But at some point he was in effect saying to you that he had not been informed that you were seeking the help of the union. Q. And he felt that it had been unfair that he hadn't been told that. A. Yes, sir. Q. All right. Then after that was anything further said about the Union? A. Well, he kept coming over, kept going over the fact that it was regrettable situation, and an un- pleasant task that he had to perform, and all that, and he had repeated it three or four times. And finally I asked him, I said, "well, then, are we to assume that you are firing us for this and the union?" and he said yes. Q. What is "This?" A. Well, for walking out. Q. All right. Anything else? A. No. Q. Do you remember any other mention of the Union during this meeting other than the two state- ments'you have told me about? A. Well, he was talking to the others; we were all talking about the union, about a bargaining commit- tee, and everything. Q. This referred to the thing of the previous day, wanting to get a bargaining committee, etc. A Yes. Taking this cross-examination in connection with the purpose of Newman's morning speech which, he said, was to "talk to the employees to get them to understand the Company's viewpoints on this before they decide to take any action," and his feeling that by having the meet- ing they could talk to the employees and reason with them, in conjunction with all of the other facts developed concerning the circumstances and occurrences of January II, leads me to believe that the Company, through its top management, engaged in interference with the right of employees to concerted union activity. It is undenied that Egnell told the employees in the parking lot on the morn- ing of January 12 that they would be fired if they did not clock in. On the previous evening, when the employees walked out of the plant, Stein told them that the plant would be open at 7 a.m., with the implication that the em- ployees would be required to report back to work on the following morning. The walkout on the afternoon of January I 1 was only because of the concern of the em- ployees about broken promises concerning wages and shift differentials and their protest against poor working conditions. At Newman's meeting with the employees on the morning of January 12, he called the roster of employees by calling off their names on timecards given to each em- ployee as he or she came up to put his or her card in the timecard rack. Among the persons who did not answer their names was one Lloyd Backemeyer, and Newman endorsed on his card "dismissed 1/ 12/67 for not reporting to work on time." Backemeyer had punched out early on Wednesday, apparently did not work Thursday, January 12. Later an excuse given by him was accepted and his discharge was rescinded. It should be noted that the eight employees went to the union hall on January 12 were discharged. Backemeyer, before his reinstatement, had explained to Newman that he had not been to the UAW hall on January 12. The testimony of Howard to the effect that she told Foreman Egnell and Reed on the evening of January 1 1 that the employees intended to take the matter up with the Labor Board or the Union is unrefuted. There is a strong, if not unrebuttable presumption, that Newman knew where the employees were bound when they left the plant on the morning of January 12, he having testified that the employees met employees Hess and Garten driv- ing in, that they stopped and talked to the two men, "and then I was told the two fellows turned around and fol- lowed them back out." From this he said he assumed that they came to work that morning a little bit late, and then when they found out where the female employees were going, they followed. The "No-Solicitation" Rule The contention of the Respondent, supported mainly by the testimony of Stein, is to the effect that Avas Howard violated a no-solicitation rule on the morning of January 12, when she was in the plant, near the timeclock, holding union authorization cards in her hand. There is no showing made by the Respondent that there was such a rule, either narrow or broad, in effect until it was asserted by Stein during the course of the hearing that Howard had been fired for violation of such rule. It appears, too, that Stein was not sure that the reason for the discharge of Howard was for violation of a rule against solicitation. Even were such a rule ever in effect, it becomes meaningless as a basis for the discharge of Howard in the whole context of this case. The Threat to Close the Plant In support of the amendment allowed to the complaint at the hearing, counsel for the General Counsel called Meda Hillman, who testified to the overhearing by her of a conversation between Miklos Sperling and employee Mary Frances Goostrie during which conversation Goos- MERZ ENGINEERING COMPANY trie asked Sperling about a 10-cent increase in pay; she said that Sperling asked her "what dime?" and that Goos- trie said then that "if we got a union here , we would get our dime raise and we could probably get more than a dime." Further , according to Hillman , Sperling became angry and told Goostrie that if he ever heard anything about a union coming into the plant he would close the plant down , fire employees , and probably hire new girls to take their place . According to Hillman , Goostrie "was just kind of joking"; that after Sperling had said that he would close the plant , fire "you girls and I 'll just get new girls probably," walked away. On behalf of the Respond- ent, proof was offered to show that Sperling was absent from Indianapolis during the 3 days when Hillman and Goostrie were at work at the same time, these days being November 9, 10, and 11 , 1966. Security reports offered do not cover the entire time worked on all shifts on work- days, so that if Sperling visited the plant on any one of the 3 days when both Hillman and Goostrie were at work on the same shift , any visit to the plant during all parts of the whole time would not have been recorded by the security officers. Ina Joanne Schube, employed as Sperling's secretary , testified that Sperling was out of the city during the times he was supposed to have been at the plant and at the time he was supposed to have made the alleged threat. She identified certain airline statements which on their face show the purchase of tickets to points outside of Indianapolis for the use of Sperling and his wife on the dates mentioned . The airline records in themselves are in- conclusive , since they show only the dates on which charges for tickets were made; they do not show the dates of actual use of the tickets. Goostrie did not appear as a witness. Sperling did not testify directly on the point. The evidence , therefore , is inconclusive beyond resolving the question of credibility as between Hillman and Schube. After hearing and observing the witnesses , and giving due weight to the conflicts involved in the testimony, I am inclined to credit Hillman and find that she did overhear a conversation to the general effect as testified to by her. Concluding Findings The employees of the Respondent on January 11 and 12, it is found , by engaging in the activities described above, engaged in concerted protected activity within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act; and the Respondent, by discharging some of them by reason of such activities, en- gaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec- tion 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. The walkout involved here grew out of a "labor dispute" within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(a); and assuming that the Respondent did have an established rule for bidding employees to leave their work without permission , it was notjustifiable "cause" for their discharge The appearance of the employees at the plant after their meeting with Strickland on the morning of January 12 constituted clear notice to the Respondent of their readiness to return to their jobs ; and the statements of Newman at the subsequent meeting was a plain rebuff to an unconditional offer to return to work. The activities and statements of Newman and Stein, in Stein's office, and the speech of Newman at the time made constitute interference and coercion within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act . I so find.8 253 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 Respondent's operations described in section I, above, have a close, in- timate, 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 the Respondent has engaged in cer- tain unfair labor practices it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the Respondent had discriminated in regard to the tenure of employment and by refusing to reinstate or reemploy the above-named employees it will be recommended that the Respondent offer them im- mediate and full reinstatement to their former or substan- tially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges , and that each be made whole for any loss of pay he or she may have suf- fered by reason of the discrimination , by payment to him or her of a sum of money equal to that to which he or she would normally have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination to the date of the Respondent 's offer of reinstatement , less his or her net earnings during such period, with backpay computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, 294 , and with interest thereon as prescribed by the Board in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the whole record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is now, and has been at all times material herein , an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discriminating in the tenure of employment and the discharge of Patricia Freije, Meda Hillman, Mary Capps, Patricia Warren , William J . Hess, Charles W. Garten, Avas A. Howard , and Sharon Ann Ropp, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act and by such dis- crimination is thereby interfering with , restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaran- teed in Section 7 of the Act, and has engaged in and is en- gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec- tion 8 (a)(1) and (3) of the Act. 4. Since on or about January 12, 1967, the Respond- ent, by refusing to reinstate the above -named employees upon their unconditional offer to return to their former or substantially equivalent positions of employment, and by continuing to fail and refuse to reinstate said employees to their former or substantially equivalent positions of " N L R B v Washington Aluminum Co , 370 U S 9, reversing 291 F2d869 [ 126 NLRB 1410] 254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employment , or to reemploy said employees has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. 5. The Respondent by promulgating and enforcing a rule prohibiting solicitation and distribution of literature on behalf of the Union since January 12, 1967, has en- gaged in and is engaging in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 6. The Respondent , on January 12, 1967, by threaten- ing to discharge and otherwise discriminate against em- ployees for engaging in protected concerted activity within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 7. The unfair labor practices mentioned herein are un- fair labor practices affecting commerce within the mean- ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. signed by the Respondent's representative , shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 25, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.10 IT FURTHER IS RECOMMENDED that unless the Re- spondent complies with this Recommended Order, an Order be entered by the Board requiring the Respondent to comply with the provisions of the Recommended Order. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, conclu- sions of law , and the entire record in the case, and pur- suant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , I recommend that Miklos Sperling, an individual , d/b/a Merz Engineering Company, Special Products Division , its officers , agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging concerted activities of its employees by discriminatorily discharging any of its employees, or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to engage in concerted activities for the pur- pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro- tection, or to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agree- ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure' Act of 1959. 2. Take the following affirmative action which, it is found, will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Patricia Freije, Meda Hillman, Mary Capps, Patricia Warren, William J. Hess, Charles W. Garten, Avas A. Howard, and Sharon Ann Ropp im- mediate and full reinstatement to their former or substan- tially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, discharging if necessary any employees hired to replace them. (b) Make whole said employees in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy" for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against them. (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) Post at its plant on Shadeland Avenue in Indi- anapolis, Indiana, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."9 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 25, after being duly 0 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 Ap- peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order " 10 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 25, 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 discourage concerted activity by discriminatorily discharging any of our employees or in any other manner discriminating against them in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or any other term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner inter- fere with , restrain, or coerce our employees in the ex- ercise of their right to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mu- tual aid or protection , and to refrain from any and all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring member- ship in a labor organization as a condition of employ- ment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. WE WILL offer Patricia Freije, Meda Hillman, Mary Capps, Patricia Warren, William J. Hess, Charles W. Garten, Avas A. Howard, and Sharon Ann Ropp, immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed , and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the dis- MERZ ENGINEERING COMPANY 255 crimination, discharging if necessary any persons presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United hired to replace them. States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the MIKLOS SPERLING, AN IN- Universal Military Training and Service Act, as DIVIDUAL, D/B/A MERz EN- amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. GINEERING COMPANY, SPE- This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive CIAL PRODUCTS DIVISION days from the date of posting and must not be altered, (Employer) defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice Dated By or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate (Representative) (Title) directly with the Board's Regional Office, 614 ISTA Center, 150 West Market Street, Indianapolis , Indiana Note: We will notify the above-named employees if 46204, Telephone 633-8921.