Preston Products Co., Inc.

188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Preston Products Company, Inc. and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricul- tural Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO. Cases 7-CA-5861 (1) and (2) January 16,1968 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA On September 12, 1967, Trial Examiner Herzel H. E. Plaine issued his Decision in the above-enti- tled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He further found that the Respondent had not engaged in other unfair labor practices alleged in the com- plaint and recommended dismissal of these allega- tions. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. 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. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommenda- tions 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 or- ders that the Respondent, Preston Products Com- pany, Inc., Grand Rapids, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the ac- tion set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom- mended Order. ' The Trial Examiner found that Respondent did not engage in surveil- lance in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act . He also failed to find, as al- leged in the complaint, that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) by Pres- ident Anthony Preston's statements to employee Essie Millbrooks in the presence of, employees Delores Domasik and Linda Brookstra as to the reasons why Millbrooks did not receive a bonus. We note that no excep- tions were filed to the Trial Examiner's conclusions as to these 8(a)(1) al- legations of the complaint , and we adopt them pro forma. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION HERZEL H. E. PLAINE, Trial Examiner: This proceed- ing was initiated pursuant to Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act), upon charges by the Union, the Charging Party, filed January 10 and March 3, 1967, and complaints issued thereon consolidated under the amended complaint of March 23, 1967. The amended complaint alleged that Respondent en- gaged in unfair labor practices that violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act by discriminatory refusal to pay a 1966 Christmas bonus to one employee and dis- criminatory reduction in the 1966 Christmas bonus of two other employees, and by discriminatory discharge thereafter of two of the three employees, because of union activities, filing charges with the Board, and giving testimony before the Board; and violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by instructing and encouraging employees to engage in surveillance of the union activities of fellow em- ployees. Respondent entered a general denial and an affirmative defense that the two terminated employees were laid off in the normal course of business because of a temporary cutback in employment. On due notice the case was heard in Grand Rapids, Michigan, on May 1-3, 1967. Counsel for the parties have filed briefs.' Upon the entire record of the case and from my obser- vation of the witnesses, I make the following: 2 ' Counsel for the Respondetnt has devoted a portion of his brief to proposing what is in effect a motion that I adopt or direct adoption of the terms of an alleged "settlement" among the parties in lieu of adjudicating the issues presented in the case. This was essentially the position Respondent took that was not adopted at the hearing, after I had allowed a substantial period of time for settle- ment negotiations , out of my presence, and after a tentative agreement brought to me for tentative approval foundered on the ultimate objections of General Counsel that the backpay offered the discharged employees, who would be reinstated by the Respondent, was considerably less than full backpay. At that point both the Charging Party and General Counsel withdrew whatever conditional agreement they had signified . In view of Respondent's renewed contention that he had a "settlement " which was "arbitrarily" denied him by the General Counsel, I gave the parties a further opportunity , before I wrote this Decision (notice and order of July 20, 1967), to confer and to advise me whether a settlement could be reached, or to express their views if one could not be reached . From the supplemental memorandum of the Respondent, the reply brief of the General Counsel , and the telegram of the Charging Party, it appears that there has been no change in offers or positions. The difficulty with Respondent's position is not a lack of authority in the Trial Examiner to accept a settlement, in an appropriate case, where- a party will not join in a settlement agreed to by other parties . The authori- ty is stated in the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regualtions, Series 8, Section 101.9 (d), as amended July 4, 1967; and see Local 638, United Assn. of Journeymen etc. and Nepco Terminal Corp., 158 NLRB 1747. The difficulty is that there never was final agreement among any of the parties on the terms of a settlement, and since the terms that Respond- ent alone proposes are less than full vindication of the complaint and sub- stantially less in respect of backpay , I cannot say that it is in the public in- terest to brush aside the objections of the General Counsel and Charging Party, and direct entry of an unexplained prima facie insufficient order closing the case without benefit of the hearing. At the time the tentative settlement was first rejected, I was informed that the dollars offered were well under half of the accrued backpay, and today, with no change in the offer, the difference would be even greater. If the Respondent is suggesting, as General Counsel thinks Respondent suggests, that it is entitled to a credit , on any backpay obligation , of unem- ployment compensation paid by the State of Michigan to the discharged employees concerned , Respondent is plainly in error, N.L.R.B. v. Gullets Gin Company, 340 U.S. 361, 364. The motion for entry of an order adopting the terms of the alleged settle- ment is denied. 2 To correct errors which appear in the transcript of the record, I have ordered the corrections set out in Appendix A of this Decision. [Appendix A omitted from publication.] 169 NLRB No. 34 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION PRESTON PRODUCTS CO., INC. 189 The Respondent is a Michigan corporation with its place of business in Grand Rapids, Michigan, where it is engaged in the processing, assembling, manufacturing, selling, and distributing of automotive parts and related products. During the 12 months prior to the issuance of the complaint, which was a representative period, Respondent purchased and caused to be delivered to its Grand Rapids plant, directly from points outside Michigan, goods valued in excess of $50,000; and manu- factured at, and sold and shipped from, its Grand Rapids plant, directly to points outside Michigan, products valued in excess of $50,000. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background and Issues In recent times, since about March 1964, the Union has been campaigning to organize the employees of Respondent's plant engaged in the production and processing of automobile parts. The Union lost an elec- tion on May 11, 1964, but prevailed before the Board on charges of unfair labor practices, including refusal to recognize and bargain with the Union, Preston Products Company, Inc., 158 NLRB 322, adopting Trial Examiner Ohibaum's Decision (November 15, 1965), in Cases 7-CA-4726 and 7-CA-6197, tried in January 1965. The Board's Order directing Respondent to bargain with the Union, and for other relief, has been contested, and there are presently pending in the United States Court of Ap- peals for the District of Columbia petitions to review, and cross-petition for enforcement, of the Board's Order, combined under the lead name of International Union, United Automobile Workers [Preston Products Co.]v. N.L.R.B. (Nos. 20,137; 20,185; 20,301) [392 F.2d 801]. The present case is an outgrowth of the continuing con- test, involving events in 1966 and 1967 and essentially two issues. (1) In December 1966, Respondent denied the custo- mary Christmas bonus to employee Essie Millbrooks, then employed 4 years, and sharply cut the bonus of em- ployee Estelle Hines, then employed 12 years, though most of their eligible fellow workers of the racking depart- ment (those who worked 6 months or more) received Christmas bonuses higher than, or the same as, the previ- ous customary spring (May 1966) bonus. Respondent also sharply cut the Christmas 1966 bonus of employee Waregee Holt, then employed about 22 years, although most of her eligible fellow workers (those who worked 6 months or more) in the chrome inspection department received bonuses higher than, or the same as, the previ- ous spring bonus. Shortly thereafter, on February 24, 1967, in a layoff of a number of employees, employees Millbrooks and Hines were discharged, but in disregard of their seniority , a factor which was otherwise generally observed in this and previous layoffs, and notwithstand- ing recognition of their ability by immediate supervisors. Employees Millbrooks , Hines, and Holt had each testified for the General Counsel in the January 1965 hearing in 7-CA-4726 et al., supra. Thereafter, in June 1965, employee Millbrooks filed with the Board addi- tional charges of her own against the Respondent, 7-CA-5254, alleging discriminatory conduct of the Respondent in regard to certain conditions of her employ- ment (charges dismissed by the Regional Director without issuing a complaint). In the present hearing, Respondent has attributed to employee Holt, among others, sponsorship for the filing of a later unfair labor practice charge by the Union in March 1966, 7-CA-5492, which charge, in Mrs. Holt's case , related allegedly to "unilaterally decreasing " her Christmas 1965 bonus (charge dismissed by the Regional Director without issuing a complaint). Employees Hines and Holt gave evidence of participating in the continuing campaign to sign up employees for the Union. Notwithstanding Respondent's general denial of the complaint by its answer, and the assertion therein of an economic justification for terminating the employment of Millbrooks and Hines , Respondent offered no testimony directly explaining the discharge of the two employees or the reduction of their Christmas 1966 bonuses along with the reduction of the Christmas 1966 bonus of employee Holt. The issue, therefore, is whether the General Counsel has made a sufficient showing to warrant a finding of dis- criminatory motive in the discharges and in the reduction of bonuses of the affected employees. (2) The complaint also charged that Respondent, by its President Anthony Preston, instructed and en- couraged employees to engage in surveillance of the union activities of fellow employees. The issue is whether the instructions by President Preston to a former supervisor , Bhupat Sangani, related to watching for union activities, or suspected mal- feasance, by employees. B. Denial of Bonus and Discharge of Employee Mill- brooks According to the testimony of several witnesses, in- cluding employees Essie Millbrooks, Estelle Hines, Waregee Holt, and Delores Domasik, Respondent held two Christmas parties in the plant lunchroom December 23, 1966, for the employees of the first and second shifts, respectively. These occasions had become customary get-togethers over coffee and cake where Christmas bonuses were distributed to the employees.3 According to employee Millbrooks the bulletin board contained a notice that all employees who had worked 6 months or more would receive a bonus and, as employees Hines and Holt testified, President Anthony Preston re- peated this in his speech at the party for the first shift. At the party for the second shift, according to em- ployee Millbrooks, President Preston in his speech talked about the recent fire at the plant, the shortage of parts, and that bonuses would be cut one-third. He then passed 3 The custom of Christmas and spring parties for distribution of bonuses was about 10 years old, according to Waregee Holt, an employee for about 23 years 190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD out the bonuses, calling the employee names in alphabeti- cal order, but skipped employee Millbrooks, a 4-year em- ployee who received no bonus. At the conclusion of the distribution, employee Millbrooks went forward accom- panied by two of her coworkers, employees Delores Domasik and Linda Brookstra (who had received their bonuses), to ask why she had not received a bonus, in view of the bulletin board notice. President Preston told her, according to employee Millbrooks, that she had harassed him, had been uncooperative, and had cost the Company money by filing false labor charges against the Company.' Employee Millbrooks asked President Preston if he were using her bonus to pay for the false charges. He said, no, not exactly, but that he did have to pay for the false charges. General Counsel introduced a copy of a charge, filed with the Board by employee Millbrooks on June 30, 1965, claiming discrimination against her in certain condi- tions of her employment (G.C. Exh. 2) which charges, it was stipulated, had been dismissed by the Regional Director without issuance of a complaint.5 There was also introduced Respondent's compilation of certain employment data showing specifically the bonuses paid current employees (to the extent they were then employed and eligible) in May 1965, December 1965, May 1966, and December 1966, General Coun- sel's Exhibit 3. Employee Millbrooks had worked in the racking department.6 It appears that her bonus in May 1965 was $105, her December 1965 bonus was $11, her May 1966 bonus was $12, and her December 1966 bonus was zero. In contrast, of the female rackers who had worked more than 6 months at Christmas 1966, number- ing 33 employees, 19 rackers had received an increase in the December 1966 bonus over the preceding May 1966 bonus, and 5 rackers had received the same bonus as in May 1966, making a total of 24 of the 33 eligibles who were either not cut or received an increase in bonus in December 1966. Of the remaining eight rackers (the record for a ninth, Maxine Thomas, who was employed since July 12, 1965, and who testified at the hearing, is apparently incomplete), only employee Millbrooks received no bonus or a 100-percent cut, and employee Estelle Hines (discharged the following February with Mil'lbroo'ks) received a 60-percent cut from the May 1966 bonus; whereas the other six rackers received cuts rang- ingfrom a low of 5 percent to a high for but one employee of 33 percent. (G.C. Exh. 3, pp. 7-10.) In the,racking department the record is clear that there was no one-third cut in the Christmas 1966 bonus as Pres- ident Preston proclaimed. The record is further clear that employees Millbrooks and Hines, who were discharged shortly thereafter, alone received the severe percentage cuts in Christmas 1966 bonus (compared with the preceding May bonus) well in excess of a one-third cut. President Preston, who was the sole witness called by the Respondent, did not deny or comment on any of em- ployee Millbrooks' testimony and offered no explanation of her bonus cut (or of the bonus cut for employee Hines) in contrast to the bonus increases for most of the eligible women rackers. He did mention that the Company lost money in the 4 months ending October 30, 1966, the first loss in any year since 1944 he said, and that it had a par- tially uninsured fire loss on November 29, 1966, but did not attempt to relate these to the December 1966 bonus situation. On the contrary Preston devoted his discussion of the fire loss to the possibility of sabotage as its cause. On February 22, 1967, according to employee Maxine Thomas, Foreman Jim Carden, who was supervisor of the second or night shift, walked about the shop asking various of the women to signify in writing whether they would work on the first or day shift and advising that the night shift was coming to an end and there would be a layoff of those not transferred on Friday, February 24. Foreman Carden told employee Millbrooks, who signed for the transfer, according to the testimony of employee Millbrooks, that he was sure she was not going to be laid off because the layoff would be determined by seniority, that she was one of the oldest on the second shift, and that he was pretty sure she would be transferred to the first shift.7 He also told employee Millbrooks that she had ability, according to employee Maxine Thomas. How- ever, on February 24, when Foreman Carden handed out the transfer slips, he handed employee Millbrooks a layoff slip saying, as employee Millbrooks stated, that he was sorry, he was not eating his words, he still thought she should have been transferred to the first shift, but that he did not own the place and he did as he was told. Fellow employees on the second shift who testified, Maxine Thomas, Linda Brookstra, and Delores Domasik, said that Foreman Carden told the girls the layoff would be governed by seniority and ability. Each of them, with considerably less seniority than employee Millbrooks, after signifying willingness to transfer, was transferred to the first shift on February 24. The testimony of employees Millbrooks and Domasik and the record of employment, G.C. Exhibit 3, indicate that employee Millbrooks ranked third in seniority among the rackers of the second shift, excluding the lead girl, and outranked six girls who were transferred to the first shift when she was laid off, and also outranked a seventh girl, Faye Caines (or Alice Cain), who was laid off when' Mill- brooks was laid off, but who was recalled 3 weeks later. The testimony of employee Domasik and G.C. Exhibit 3 also demonstrate that in previous layoffs and recalls, Respondent used seniority as its guide. Employee Domasik remembered the Easter 1965 layoff, when she, as the senior of four other girls, was the last to be laid off. G.C. Exhibit 3 reflects that in the January 11, 1967, recall of employees laid off in December 1966, seniors were 4 Employee Domasik testified to the same effect , stating that President Preston told employee Millbrooks that she had harassed him and made false statements to the Union which cost him a lot of money, and that bonuses were for people who cooperated . Employee Domasik, who was only a 2-year employee working in the same department on the second shift with' employee Millbrooks at the same hourly rate of pay ($2 10), testified that she received a Christmas 1966 bonus of $100, which was $20 higher than her May 1966 bonus See also G C . Exh 3, p. 8. 5 It is also a matter of record that employee Millbrooks gave testimony in the January 1965 hearing for the General Counsel in support of the Union's majonty status (158 NLRB 322) President Preston admitted that in giving his new supervisor , Sangam, instructions and advice on dealing with the women rackets he mentioned the NLRB hearing of January 1965, and that Essie Millbrooks had been one of the people who testified in that trial 6 Racking, according to President Preston, is the placing of metal parts on an electrically wired rack that carves the parts through variousi plating cycles in the process of nickel and chrome plating. The function of the racker is to make an electro-mechanical contact for the plating operation. 7 Foreman Carden did not testify. He was supervisor of the painting de- partment, at the time of the hearing, according to employee Domasik. PRESTON PRODUCTS CO., INC. preferred to juniors, and that in the layoff of February 7-9, 1967, seniors were retained in preference to juniors. Again, as in the case of the nonpayment of the Christ- mas 1966 bonus, there was no testimony on behalf of Respondent purporting to explain why other less senior girls were preferred over employee Millbrooks in the February 24 layoff or the March 15 recall. On the other hand, there was uncontroverted testimony by employee Millbrooks, whose testimony I had no reason to doubt, that Supervisor Sangani told her in late August that he was instructed by (President) Tony Preston to watch her "so that we can get rid of you." Sangani testified, see heading E, infra, that Preston told him that employee Millbrooks was one who testified against the Company (as Preston admitted, fn. 5, supra ), and that he wanted to get rid of her because he did not want a union, an account which I have credited. C. Reduction of Bonus and Discharge of Employee Hines Employee Estelle Hines was a 13-year employee when she received her layoff notice on February 24, 1967. From her testimony she had worked 11 years on the line (plating) and the remainder on letters (racking), and was on the first or day shift of the racking department at the time of layoff. At the Christmas party on December 23, 1966, for the first shift, she heard President Preston make a speech that everyone employed for 6 months or more would receive a bonus, but due to the fact that he had not made any money for the last 6 months, bonuses would be cut by one-third. Preston also said, she stated, that he had given $20,000 in bonuses for the spring 1966 bonus but took about $16,000 "out of the fund" to give the Christmas bonus. He also referred to the plant fire that had occurred before Christmas. Employee Hines testified she received a Christmas 1966 bonus of $20. Her Christmas 1964 and spring 1965 bonuses had each been $100, and her Christmas 1965 and spring 1966 bonuses had each been $50. (See also G.C. Exh. 3, p. 8.) After the party she complained about the $20 bonus to her supervisor, Lawrence Smith, who commented that "there's a lot of 'em are unhappy," according to employee Hines. However, the record of bonus payments, see G.C. Exh. 3 as discussed under heading B, supra, reflects that only employees Hines and Millbrooks of the racking de- partment received the severe bonus cuts of over one-third in December 1966, in Hines' case 60 percent, and that 24 of the 33 eligible female rackers received either an in- crease over, or the same as, the May 1966 bonus. The cuts of the remaining few rackers were as low as 5 per- cent to a high for one employee of 33 percent. Just prior to February 24, 1967, Assistant Plant Su- perintendent Walter Barker came by and told employee Hines that the night and day shifts were being combined, that it was necessary to lay off 20 employees, and that she was one of them. She asked if they were going by seniori- ty and he said yes. Whereupon employee Hines told him he had quite a few to lay off before he got to her. Superin- tendent Barker replied, according to employee Hines, they were using seniority and ability to work "on the ine." Employee Hines pointed out that she had worked on the line for 11 years and only better than a year on let- 191 ters (racking). Barker expressed surprise that, he did not know this and had not been there too long himself, and would look into it. Nevertheless, on February 24, 1967, employee Hines was laid off. She was third in seniority in the racking de- partment, and had had no complaints about her work. Not only were juniors on the first shift retained in preference to her but approximately eight junior rackers of the second shift, including employee witnesses Domasik, Brookstra, and Thomas, were transferred to the first shift in preference to retaining her. Three weeks later a junior racker, Alice Cain (or Fay Caines), also laid off on February 24, was recalled (G.C. Exh. 3, p. 8), but there was no recall offered employee Hines. Employee Hines testified that she was a member of the Union, had distributed membership cards both before and after the NLRB Decision (158 NLRB 322), and had dis- tributed about 25 to 30 cards in and about the plant in nonworking time in October-November 1966. She also testified for the General Counsel in the N LRB hearing of January 1965.11 Again, as in the case of employee Millbrooks, supra, President Preston made no comment in his testimony re- garding the testimony of employee Hines and offered no explanation of the reduction of her bonus in December 1966, or of her discharge in February 1967, or of the failure to offer her reinstatement in preference to the less senior laid off employee later recalled. D. Reduction of Bonus of Employee Holt Employee Waregee Holt had been an employee of the Respondent almost 22 years at the time of the 1966 Christmas party. She was a chrome inspector working on the first shift. Like employee Hines, heading C, supra, she heard President Preston announce at the party a bonus for all who had worked 6 months or more. Not- withstanding she was the senior employee in the chrome inspection department, employee Holt received a bonus of only $50, which was the lowest paid anyone in the de- partment except two other employees, one Ceclia Novakowski, hired in October 1964, paid no Christmas bonus and laid off directly thereafter, and Martha Hylton, hired in September 1964 and paid a bonus of $40 (G.C. Exh. 3, pp. 2, 3, 4, 10). In May 1965, employee Holt's bonus was $120, in December 1965 it was cut to $70, remained at $70 for May 1966, and was cut again, as indicated, in December 1966 to $50 (G.C. Exh. 3, p. 3). Of the 30 eligible em- ployees in the chrome inspection department (39 em- ployees minus 9 employees who had worked less than 6 months), the December 1966 bonus of 12 employees ex- ceeded their previous May 1966 bonus and the bonus of 5 employees equaled their May 1966 bonus. Thus 17 em- ployees of the 30 eligibles received Christmas 1966 bonuses exceeding or equal to their previous May 1966 bonuses. Of the 13 employees who were cut in December 1966, 4 still received well over $200 each and 6 were paid $100 or more, with employee Holt and 2 others alone receiving $50 or less. Employee Holt went to her supervisor, Dorothy Bla- siak, after receiving the $50 bonus and asked if her work had been satisfactory and whether it had to do with the cut in bonus. Supervisor Blasiak, according to employee Holt, said she was surprised and did not know why the 8 See references to her credited testimony in 158 NLRB 322, 333, 336. 192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD reduction in bonus had been made because Holt's work was very good and because Blasiak had in fact put Holt on the merit list. Employee Holt testified that she had given testimony for the General Counsel at the January 1965 NLRB hear- ing, and the record of the case reflects that it was credited testimony (158 NLRB 322, 333). She testified that she had been a union member for more than a year prior to the present hearing and had given employee Hines 9 or 10 membership cards. Employee Holt identified a leaflet (C. P. Exh. 1) distributed to all employees by Respondent, comprising a copy of a letter of May 4, 1966, from Respondent to the Union (refusing negotiating informa- tion and declining to comply with the Board Decision because the case was on appeal), and a notation to Respondent's employees not to be "mislead or panic [sic] into signing Union cards" since the "Union question was still before the courts and there is ... no need for anyone to take any hasty action." Employee Holt acknowledged, at Respondent's request, that she had been associated with the union charge of unfair labor practices allegedly committed by Respondent, Case 7-CA-5492 (Resp. Exh. 1, filed in March 1966) that complained, among other things, of Respondent "unilaterally decreasing" the bonuses of known union adherents. This charge was dismissed by the Regional Director without issuance of a complaint because, as stated in the letter of dismissal, this particular allegation would be remedied if the then pending case against Respondent, 158 NLRB 322, reached the com- pliance stage (Resp. Exh. 2, May 3, 1966). As in the cases of employees Millbrooks and Hines, President Preston offered no testimony contradicting or commenting upon the testimony of employee Holt or ex- plaining her bonus reduction. E. Instructing Surveillance Paragraph 9(a) of the complaint alleged that on or about August 5, 1966, the Respondent, by its agent Anthony Preston, instructed and encouraged its employees to en- gage in surveillance of the activities of their fellow em- ployees on behalf of the Union. The evidence in support of this complaint was the testimony of a former employee and supervisor, Bhupat Sangani, who worked for Respondent from August to December 1966. Sangani was raised and educated in In- dia, obtained a degree in chemistry from the University of Bombay, and had been in the United States about 6 years. Sangani testified that he was hired at the beginning of August 1966, as a plating engineer, and about a month thereafter became supervisor of approximately 23 to 25 employees in, the racking, inspection, and plating depart- ments, The combined testimony of Sangani and President Preston makes clear that while Sangani started as a technician he had been hired with the mutual expectation of his becoming a production supervisor as he became familiar with the plant's production activity. As Preston testified, he started gradually assigning supervisory responsibility to Sangani first over the platers and then over the rackers and inspectors in the plating room; and it was established that Sangani exercised some superviso- ry authority well within the first month of his employment before reaching the more comprehensive supervisory status over the three departments at the end of the month. According to Sangani, about 10 days after he came to work, President Preston called him to his office and talked about his difficulties with employees and the Union. Preston told him, said Sangani, that he did not want a union in the plant, that he wanted employee Essie Millbrooks and another girl, who had testified against the Company, watched,9 and "for me to work for the Com- pany as a spy." Preston said, according to Sangani, that employee Millbrooks had also testified against the Com- pany and that he wanted to get rid of her because he did not want a union. On cross-examination, Sangam further testified that President Preston said a "lot" of the em- ployees were against him and engaging in sabotage, that Essie Millbrooks was doing this, and there were others without mentioning their names, that some of the people would be working for Sangani and he (Preston) wanted Sangani to watch these people and "look for what they do against the company." This was a long meeting, between 1-1/2 and 2 hours, according to Sangani. Sangani testified to a second, briefer conversation, oc- curring sometime later, after he allegedly reported to President Preston that he hadn't found out about em- ployee Millbrooks because she was out sick for a time, and Preston reputedly told him "to find out what they are up to." President Preston's version of these two conversations with Sangani varied in a number of respects. Both meetings were brief occasions of a few minutes duration, according to Preston, and each took place on the plating line. The first discussion, 10 days after employee Sangani started work, occurred, according to President Preston, after the leadgirl on the line, Josephine Banka, com- plained that Sangani's frequent conversations, joking and laughing with three of the rackers - employees Essie Mill- brooks, Delores Domasik, and Linda Brookstra - were disrupting the work, and asked Preston to do something about it. Preston said he brought the matter to Sangant's attention while both were on the plating line, telling San- gani he was not to talk to these girls because it was inter- fering with production. Preston took occasion, he said, to call Sangani's attention to a suspected slowdown in the plant and that Sangani was being used to contribute to it by the talking. The second occasion occurred, according to President Preston, also on the plating line, when Sangani first became racking department supervisor. Preston said he told Sangani one of the problems was improper racking of parts that resulted in scrapping of material, and that it was one of Sangani's duties to find out who among the rackers was not racking properly, and to teach or guide them, and if they could not be taught to have them transferred to something they could do. President Preston said he mentioned in the discussion that Respondent had had an NLRB hearing 2 years ago and that employee Essie Millbrooks was one of the peo- ple who testified in that trial. Preston said he told Sangani to be cautious about women employees who tend to en- gage him in conversation that would "dilute his super- s Sangani was unable to give the name of the other girl whom he identified as "Estelle" and at another point as "Jeame," but stated she was pointed out to him and told she was a "problem and she has testified against the company for two or three years " President Preston admitted, infra, that he discussed employee Millbrooks with Sangani , but denied he discussed employee Hines, whose first name is Estelle. PRESTON PRODUCTS CO., INC. visory instructions," or "interfere with productivity." Preston denied that he used the word "spy" and stated that he instructed Sangani as he did every supervisor, that what he was "being paid for is supervision. That means that they have to be aware of the action, the pro- ductivity and quality and the attitude of each and every employee." President Preston agreed with Sangani that he discussed with him instances of plant sabotage in the past several years, such as a cotter pin pulled out of a shaft causing a hoist to malfunction, or placing of a strip of plastic into an automatic switch preventing automatic ig- nition of a boiler; and testified that he cautioned Sangani to guard against additions of deleterious materials to plat- ing tank solutions that were causing damage. Allowing for exaggerations on both sides, such as San- gani's use of the word "spy" which I don't believe Pre- sident Preston used,10 or Preston's claim that he discussed the things he conceded telling Sangani in the openness of the plating line (where employees could over- hear) rather than behind the closed doors of the office as Sangani testified, certain clarity emerges from the testimony of both men. It appears that President Preston was burdened with the suspicion of sabotage and slowdown of production by plant employees, and instructed his supervisor-in-training and later supervisor, Sangani, to guard against it generally and to watch specifically certain employees who Preston thought might take part. In this connection, President Preston voiced for Sangani's edification, Preston's op- position to the Union coming into the plant and some of the history of his battle with the Union, as he saw it; his resolve to be rid of certain union supporters, such as em- ployee Millbrooks;ii his suspicion that some union sup- porters, including employee Millbrooks, might be par- ticipating in or planning a slowdown; and his instruction, as Sangani phrased it, that Sangani "look for what they do against the company." From the background and from the testimony in the case, it appears to me that President Preston, who knew the union supporters among the employees and that they were active in the organizing that continued in 1966,12 was not asking or instructing Sangani to observe the union activities of employees but to watch for any actions by employees to slow down or sabotage production. F. Conclusions 1. The bonus cuts and discharges were discriminatory The summary of evidence under headings B, C, and D, with cross references to E, supra, is conclusive that Respondent discriminatorily denied or reduced the Christmas 1966 bonuses of employees Millbrooks, Hines, and Holt, and thereafter on February 24, 1967, discriminatorily discharged employees Millbrooks and Hines, in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act. Employee Millbrooks, of the racking department, was openly told by President Preston at the Christmas 1966 11 It was apparent from other testimony that Sangani had reason to bear resentment toward Preston, because Preston failed to meet certain job de- mands Sangani made , and instead accepted his resignation in December 1966 and refused to pay Sangam's moving expense from Grand Rapids, an expense that Sangani felt was owed him 11 Employee Milibrooks' testimony , under heading B, supra, indicates 193 party that she was paid no bonus because she had filed charges with the Board against the Company, and that bonuses were for people who cooperated. Employee Mill- brooks had filed charges against Respondent with the Board in June 1965 that were later dismissed without is- suance of a complaint. In August 1966, President Preston had identified employee Millbrooks to his new supervisor-in-training and later supervisor, Sangani, as one who, among other things, had testified against the Company in the January 1965 Board hearing and whom he planned to be rid of because he did not want a union. Supervisor Sangani (who was told to watch her and others for a possible slowdown in production) told em- ployee Millbrooks that she was being watched preliminarily to being dropped. Employee Hines, a 13-year employee, suffered after employee Millbrooks the next highest percentage reduc- tion in Christmas bonus in the racking department, a cut of 60 percent from the previous May or spring 1966 bonus. Employee Hines had testified adversely to the Respondent in the 1965 Board hearing and had been ac- tive in obtaining union memberships both before and after the Board Decision in 1966. The payment of bonuses twice a year, in May and December, was a customary and established practice in compensating employees of the Respondent, going back at least 10 years, that had become a term or condition of employment, N.L.R.B. v. Electric Steam Radiator Cor- poration, 321 F.2d 733, 736-737 (C.A. 6, 1963). Of the 33 eligible employees in the racking department (those who had worked 6 months or more), the large majority received increases in the Christmas 1966 bonus over the previous May bonus and, all told, 24 of the 33 employees received either an increase or the same bonus as previously. Of the few remaining employees, the cuts ranged from 5 percent to 33 percent, except for em- ployees Millbrooks and Hines who were cut 100 percent and 60 percent, respectively. President Preston's state- ment to the employees at the morning and afternoon Christmas parties that bonuses were being cut by a third, was not true, and the severe cut of better than one-third was applied only to employees Millbrooks and Hines among the racking department employees. In this connec- tion it should be noted that employees Millbrooks and Hines already had suffered severe cuts since the May 1965 bonus in the bonuses of December 1965 and May 1966 (from $105 to $12 for Millbrooks and from $100 to $50 for Hines), which reductions were not typical of the bonuses paid their fellow employees in the racking de- partment. The same bonus cutting pattern was applied to em- ployee Waregee Holt of the chrome inspection depart- ment. Mrs. Holt had been in the employ of Respondent 22 years at Christmas 1966, and was the senior chrome inspector. Like employees Milibrooks and Hines, she had testified adversely to the Respondnet in the January 1965 Board hearing; and Respondent attributed to her, among others, responsibility for the Union's filing in March 1966 of a charge against Respondent with the Board (later dismissed without issuance of a complaint). Following that Sangani told her she was being watched "so that we can get rid of you.,, 12 Preston's leaflet to the employees, C P Exh 1 discussed under head- ing D, supra, suggested that employees not be "mislead" [sic] or "panic" into signing the union cards that were being distributed. 194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD her May 1965 bonus of $120, employee Holt's bonus of December 1965 was reduced to $70, remained at $70 for May 1966, and was cut again December 1966 to $50, giv- ing her the lowest bonus in a department of 30 eligibles except for 2 much junior employees hired in September and October 1964, respectively. In contrast, the majority of the eligible chrome inspec- tors received either increases in the Christmas 1966 bonus or the same size bonus as in May 1966. Even of the remainder who sustained cuts (other than Holt and the 2 juniors, supra) none were paid under $100 and some received well over $200. There were no complaints about the work performance of employees Millbrooks, Hines, or Holt; indeed in Mrs. Holt's case, her supervisor expressed surprise at the bonus cut because she had put Mrs. Holt on the merit list. Shortly thereafter, on February 24, 1967, employees Millbrooks and Hines were laid off without explanation, in disregard of the seniority rule,13 which was announced and otherwise substantially followed in this and previous layoffs, and ignoring their acknowledged ability and ex- perience. In the consolidation of the first and second shifts and elimination of the second shift that took place on Februa- ry 24, employee Hines, already on the first shift in the racking department and by virtue of her 13 years' service, third ranking employee in seniority in the whole depart- ment, was nevertheless discharged (without indication she would be recalled), while employees junior to her were retained, including eight junior rackers of the second shift who were transferred to the first shift while she was being dropped. Seniority and alleged ability to work "on the line" (the plating line) were cited to her by the assistant plant superintendent as the criteria for retention, yet not only her seniority but her 11 years' experience on the plating line were deliberately ignored. Employee Millbrooks, a 4-year employee, ranked third in seniority among the rackers of the second shift. When consolidation with the first shift was announced she had been assured by the second shift supervisor, Carden, that she would be among those retained and transferred to the first shift, based on her seniority and ability. Nevertheless on February 24, 1967, she was discharged (without indi- cation she would be recalled), while six employees whom she outranked in seniority were transferred to the first shift. Supervisor Carden indicated to her that his authori- ty, and choice that she remain, had been overruled by su- perior authority. Also laid off, when employees Hines and Millbrooks were discharged on February 24, was employee Caines (or Cain), who worked on the second shift and was junior to both of them. Three weeks later, on March 15, 1967, employee Caines was recalled to work without any offer by Respondent to recall Hines or Millbrooks. Previously, in recalls as well as in layoffs, Respondent had followed seniority, but was obviously disregarding it in the cases of employees Hines and Millbrooks. The Respondent abandoned the pretense of its formal answer that there 'was an economic justification for ter- minating the employment of Hines and Millbrooks, and offered no evidence or attempted justification at the hear- ing for selecting them for discharge and failing to recall either, as laid-off employees were recalled. In its brief, Respondent now implies that there was some lack of abihty in the two employees motivating the Respondent to discharge them, notwithstanding it offered not a word to contradict the evidence that there was praise rather than complaint respecting their ability. In this respect it should also be noted that President Preston, the sole wit- ness called on behalf of management, carefully refrained from attempting to establish or even assert that employee Millbrooks was involved in a slowdown, even though he and Supervisor Sangani testified he instructed Sangani to watch Millbrooks, among others, for such about 6 months before her discharge. President Preston likewise offered no testimony on, or explanation of, the bonus reductions of employees Mill- brooks, Hines, and Holt. Without a justifying explanation, the discharges and bonus cutting were patently selective and discriminatory. Respondent's motivation emerges unmistakeably as the desire to discourage union membership and unionization of the shop by reprisal against the three employees for their union activities, and particularly for testifying adver- sely to Respondent in its Board contest of unionization and for bringing or sponsoring charges against the Respondent before the Board.The conclusion is founded on Respondent's continuing union hostility, previously documented in 158 NLRB 322, supra, and manifested in this case in overt expressions of antiunionism and in- tended reprisal, made to Supervisor Sangani and em- ployee Millbrooks, and in the selective, disparate bonus reductions and discharges themselves for which no other rational explanation was provided. On the latter score, as was said by the Supreme Court of not unlike disparities in employee treatment in N.L.R.B. v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc., 388 U.S. 26, "the company came forward with no evidence of legitimate motives for its discrimina- tory conduct," and failed to meet "the burden ... that it was motivated by legitimate objectives." An employer is prohibited from discriminating, against employees who file charges or give testimony under the Act. Discharge, failure to rehire, or reduction in bonus for such reason violate Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act. For discriminatory discharge, see M & S Steel Company, Incorporated, v. N.L.R.B., 533 F.2d 80, 81 (C.A. 5, 1965); N.L.R.B. v. R.C. Can Company, 340 F.2d 433, 434 (C.A. 5, 1965); and note the weight given to disre- gard of seniority; Nachman Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 337 F.2d 421, 423-424 (C.A. 7, 1964). For discriminatory failure to rehire, see Pratt and Whitney Aircraft Division of United Aircraft Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 310 F.2d 676, 679 (C.A. 5, 1962). For denial or reduction of Christmas bonus, see N.L.R.B. v. Electric Steam Radiator Cor- poration, 321 F.2d 733, 736-737 (C.A. 6, 1963); Stark Ceramics, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 375 F.2d 202, 204-206 (C.A. 6, 1967); Sanitary Bag and Burlap Company Inc., 162 NLRB 1648. Notwithstanding Respondent's argu- ment "the possibility that some layoffs may have been economically justified is no defense for the selection of employees for layoff on the basis of union adherence or affiliation." N.I.R.B. v. Bedford-Nugent Corp, 379 F.2d 525 (C.A. 7, 1967). Nor is it necessary in order to con- demn the action that "antiunion motivation be the only reason for the discriminatory action complained of. It is sufficient if it is a substantial reason, despite the fact that 13 Compare N L.R B v American Casting Service, Inc., 365 F.2d 168, 172 (C.A. 7,1966). PRESTON PRODUCTS CO., INC. other reasons may also exist." Stark Ceramics Inc. v. N.L.R.B., supra , 375 F.2d 206. (C.A. 6). 2. Surveillance instruction not established Paragraph 9(a) of the complaint alleged that Respond- ent "instructed and encouraged" its employees to en- gage in surveillance of the union activities of fellow em- ployees. The evidence, comprising the testimony of Respond- ent's former supervisor, Sangani, and of President Preston, established that Sangani was instructed by Preston to watch employees generally for possible sabotage, because of unexplained incidents in the past that looked like sabotage, and to watch specifically em- ployee Millbrooks for a suspected slowdown in produc- tion; but did not establish that Sangani was instructed and encouraged to observe the union activities of employee Millbrooks or others. It is true that the same testimony provided corrobora- tion of President Preston's hostility to the Union and evidence that he had already made up his mind in the summer of 1966 to rid Respondent of employee Mill- brooks because she had testified and filed Board charges against the Respondent. However, it was clear from the whole testimony, including the testimony of Sangani and Preston on the subject of alleged surveillance, that Pres- ident Preston knew when he talked to Sangani, who the Union activists were and knew about their activity on be- half of the Union, including the obvious fact that em- ployee Millbrooks had testified adversely in the January 1965 hearing and had gone to the Board with her separate later charge. It would seem that Preston was not instruct- ing or encouraging Sangani to learn about and report the known and obvious, but rather to discover whether Preston's suspicions of physical mischief and slowdown in the plant were correct and to guard against any such happening. In the circumstances, the allegation of paragraph 9(a) of the complaint fails for lack of proof and I will recom- mend the dismissal of paragraph 9(a). III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section II, above, occurring in connection with the operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. IV. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in un- fair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act. Because Respondent discriminatorily discharged em- ployees Essie Millbrooks and Estelle Hines, it will be recommended that the Respondent offer them immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions or to sub- stantially equivalent positions , without prejudice to their seniority or other rights or privileges . It will be recom- mended that the Respondent make each whole for any 195 loss of earnings she may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against her by payment of a sum of money equal to that which she normally would have earned as wages from February 24, 1967, the date of discharge, to the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less net earnings, if any, during this period. The backpay shall be computed on a quarterly basis as prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, ap- proved in N.L.R.B. v. Seven-Up Bottling Company of Miami, Inc., 344 U.S. 344, and shall include interest at 6 percent per annum as provided by the Board in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716, approved in Philip Carey Manufacturing Company v. N.L.R.B., 331 F.2d 720 (C.A. 6, 1964) cert. denied 379 U.S. 888, and cases cited. Because Respondent discriminatorily denied or reduced the Christmas 1966 bonuses of employees Mill- brooks, Hines, and Waregee Holt, it will be recom- mended that Respondent make them whole by paying them the Christmas 1966 bonus computed according to the formula of bonus paid to employees in similar posi- tions at Christmas 1966, with interest at 6 percent from the date of discrimination, December 23, 1966, to the date the employees are made whole. Because the Respondent by its conduct violated funda- mental employee rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and because there appears from the manner of the commission of this conduct a disposition to commit other unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from in any manner infring- ing upon the rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 of the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532, 536 (C.A. 4, 1941). Upon the basis of the foregoing facts and upon the en- tire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(5) of the Act. 2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing em- ployees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act, and by discriminatorily discharging two of the employees and discriminatorily reducing their Christmas 1966 bonus and the bonus of a third employee, because of their union activities and because they testified adver- sely to Respondent in Board proceedings and filed charges against Respondent under the Act, the Respond- ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act. These unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 3. The allegations of paragraph 9(a) of the complaint charging Respondent with instructing and encouraging employees to engage in surveillance of the union activi- ties of fellow employees were not proven and should be dismissed. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing facts and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this proceeding, I recommend that Preston Products Company, Inc., its of- ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 350-212 0-70-14 196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em- ployees in their union activities, or in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining, by discharge, layoff, denial or reduction of bonuses, or other reprisal. (b) Discouraging union membership by discharging known union adherents, by denying or reducing their bonuses, or by discriminating in any other manner in re- gard to their hire, tenure, or any condition of their em- ployment. (c) Discharging, or denying or reducing bonuses, or otherwise discriminating against employees because they have filed charges or given testimony under the Act. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights of self-organization, to form, join, or assist the Union, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in con- certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from en- gaging in any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of em- ployment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) and recognized in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to employees Essie Millbrooks and Estelle Hines immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions or to substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges. and make them whole, in the manner set forth in the sec- tion of this Decision entitled "the Remedy," for any loss of earnings they may have suffered as a result of the dis- crimination against them. (b) Make whole employees Essie Millbrooks, Estelle Hines, and Waregee Holt by paying them the Christmas 1966 bonus computed according to the formula of bonuses paid to employees in similar positions at Christ- mas 1966, with interest at 6 percent from December 23, 1966, until the date they are made whole. (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 the Respondent's plant at Grand Rapids, Michigan, copies of the attached notice marked "Append- ix."14 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Re- gional Director for Region 7, Detroit, Michigan, after being duly signed by its authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.15 14 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 LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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." 15 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Re- spondent 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 your activity or member- ship in International Union , United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO (the Union), or any other labor organization, by discriminating against you if you choose to engage in activity for or to join the Union or any other union, and WE WILL NOT discriminate against you because you have filed charges or given testimony under the National Labor Relations Act. Because the Board found that we discriminated for all of these reasons when we fired employees Essie Millbrooks and Estelle Hines and when we denied or reduced the Christmas 1966 bonuses of employees Millbrooks and Hines and of employee Waregee Holt WE WILL offer to employees Essie Millbrooks and Estelle Hines full reinstatement to their old jobs, and WE WILL pay them for any loss of earnings that they suffered because we fired them, and WE WILL pay them and employee Waregee Holt their full Christmas 1966 bonuses. If either employee Mill- brooks or employee Hines is in the Armed Forces of the United States WE WILL notify her of her right to full reinstatement upon application after discharge from the Armed Forces. WE WILL NOT discharge you or deny or reduce your bonuses or engage in other reprisals because of your support of the Union or because you have filed or may file charges or have given or may give testimony under the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL respect the rights of our employees to self-organization, to form, join, or assist any labor or- ganization, or to bargain collectively concerning terms or conditions of employment through representatives of their own choosing , or to refrain from any such activity ; and WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce any employee in the exercise of these rights, except as these rights might be af- fected by a contract validly made under the National Labor Relations Act with a labor organization, whereby membership in the labor organization is a condition of employment after the 30th day following the date of the contract or the beginning of the in- dividual's employment, whichever is later. PRESTON PRODUCTS CO., INC. 197 Dated By PRESTON PRODUCTS COM- PANY, INC. (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 226-3200.