Galeton Production Co.

GALETON PRODUCTION COMPANY Rodney Heymann , d/b/a Galeton Production Company and International Molders' and Allied Workers' Union of North America, AFL-CIO. Case 6-CA-4448 April 27, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On December 30, 1969, Trial Examiner Lloyd S. Greenidge issued his Decision in the above-entitled case, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative actions, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He further found that Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. Thereafter, Respondent and General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting and answering briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Exam- iner 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 briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions 2 and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders that Respond- ent, Rodney Heymann, d/b/a Galeton Production Compa- ny, Galeton, Pennsylvania, his officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. ' We have carefully examined the record herein and find Respondent's allegation of bias on the part of the Trial Examiner to be unwarranted 2 These findings and conclusions are based, in part, upon credibility determinations of the Trial Examiner, to which Respondent has excepted After a careful review of the record, we conclude that the Trial Examin- er's credibility findings are not contrary to the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence Accordingly, we find no basis for disturbing those findings Standard Dry Wall Products. Inc , 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3) TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE LLOYD S. GREENIDGE , Trial Examiner : The' com- plaint , issued August 26, 1969, alleges that Respondent 135 has engaged in-unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(3) and ( 1) and 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , 61 Stat. 136, 73 Stat . 519, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et seq., herein called the Act, by ( 1) discharging Lottie L. Schweigart, on December 19, 1968 ,1 and thereafter failing and refus- ing to reinstate her because she had engaged in union and protected concerted activities; and (2) through the plant owner , threatening employees , in and about Sep- tember 1968, with cessation of operations if International Molders' and Allied Workers ' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union , became the col!ec- tive-bargaining representative of the employees and, announcing and granting wage increases to employees, on or about September 18, 1968 , for the purpose of dissuading them from supporting the Union.2 Respondent 's answer admits the procedural and juris- dictional allegations of the complaint , but denies the commission of unfair labor practices . On the first day of the hearing , Respondent withdrew its denial and admitted the complaint allegation concerning announcing and granting of wage increases to employees as set forth in paragraphs 5(b) and the pertinent portion of paragraph 9, thereof . In all other respects, the answer was affirmed. Hearing was held on October 7, 8, 9, and 10, 1969, at Coudersport , Pennsylvania , before the duly designated Trial Examiner . All parties were represented by counsel or union representative , and were afforded full opportuni- ty to be heard , to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence relevant and material to the issues, and to file briefs and proposed findings. Upon the entire record in the case ," his resolution of issues of credibility based upon the appearance and demeanor of the witnesses, and the briefs submitted by the General Counsel and Respondent , which have been carefully considered , the Trial Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent is an individual engaged at its principal place of business at Galeton, Pennsylvania, in the manu- facture and sale of electronic components under the name of Rodney Heymann, d/b/a Galeton Production Company. During the normal course of its business, Respondent annually sells and ships from its plant at Galeton goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000, directly to points located outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylva- nia. The complaint alleges, Respondent's answer admits, and it is hereby found, upon the basis of the foregoing ' The complaint was amended at the hearing to show the date of the discharge as it appears above 2 The original charge was filed and served on December 30, 1968 Unless otherwise stated, all events occurred in 1968 3 The General Counsel's unopposed motion to correct certain minor errors in the transcript is hereby granted 182 NLRB No. 18 136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and upon the entire record, that Respondent is now, andat all times material herein has been, an employer engaged in commerce and in a business affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is now, and at all times material herein has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A Interference, Restraint, and Coercion 1. Background Rodney Heymann, d/b/a Galeton Production Compa- ny, is a sole proprietorship owned by Rodney Heymann. It is primarily engaged in the manufacture of radio tube subassemblies. About 3 years prior to the events here in issue , Heymann acquired control of the business and began to perform substantially the same operations which had been performed by his predecessor for approx- imately 25 years. During the period with which we are here concerned, Respondent employed about 500 employees. The department involved in this proceeding, the LVA department, has some 38 employees and 2 monitors under the supervision of Francis Edward Ray- mer i Most of the events to be- discussed occurred between June 1968, the commencement of the Union's organiza- tional campaign , and December 19, the 'date of the discharge. ' The parties stipulated and I find that, prior to his discharge on September 19, Robert E. Myers was the plant manager and a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and, that, at all times material herein, Raymer was a supervisor within the statutory definition. . Over the years there have been a number of unsuccess- ful attempts at the organization of the Respondent's employees. The most recent effort began in June 1968. Under the aegis of Benjamin Musser, an International organizer, the Union held meetings of employees and sought to obtain employee signatures on authorization cards. On July 9, the Union filed a representation petition (Case 6-RC-4743). Pursuant to an agreement for consent election executed July 26, an election by secret ballot was conducted on August 28 to determine whether cer- tain employees of the Employer wished to be represented by the Union, by United Electrical, Radio and'Machine Workers (UE), or by neither union.4 The election was inconclusive and thereafter the UE disclaimed any further interest in the proceedings. A ' International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC (IUE), which had also signed the consent-election agree- ment, withdrew from the case before the election runoff election was held on September 20 to determine whether or not the employees involved desired to be represented by the Union. The Union lost the election. On September 27, the Union filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election alleging, among other things, that "shortly before the election, the Employer unilaterally announced and put into effect a two-step wage increase." In accord with the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Region- al Director caused an investigation to be made of the issues raised by the objections and, on November 7, duly served on the parties a report on objections in which he ordered, on the basis of a stipulation- by the Employer and the Union, that the results of the runoff election be set aside and that a new,runoff election be held on a date to be announced. In the said stipulation, the parties agreed that the September 20 election should be set aside and a new election held for the reason that the Employer promised and granted its employees wage increases. Thereafter, on December 6, a rerun on the runoff election was conducted The Union again lost the election. No objections were filed and the case was closed on December 16. 2. Threats to cease operations The complaint alleges, and Respondent's answer denies, that, in and about September 1968, Respondent threatened employees with cessation of operations }if the Union became the collective-bargaining representa- tive of the employees. General Counsel's witnesses testified to statements by Heymann at employee gatherings in the plant cafeteria between the first and second elections as follows: Lottie Schweigart: "He said ' that right after a union got in, that it [a Galeton foundry] closed down, and then he told about other plants that closed down, like Burlington, Millpot a9d so on.'Like the Galeton foundry, he said the union got in and they closed, and then on Burlington, they had closed down when the union was in.. . . ' Etta Hilfiger-' In response to a question from someone concerning a Molder's flyer, Heymann said the only thing he knew about the foundry is that it was there, the union got in and now it is no longer there. Joan Pennell: "Well, he said that there had been a foundry in Galeton and, after the union got in, it closed down; he mentioned other plants, one was Burlington, that I remember, that had unions in, that had shut down after the union was in, and then he told us about Mansfield, not Mansfield but Flossburg, a plant, I believe that it is a foundry, and the Molders union are in this plant.. . ." Heymann admitted telling the employees that at one time there was a foundry in Galeton, the employees got a union, and now there is no foundry there. He explained that his remarks were prompted by statements in flyers circulated during the campaign. Heymann did not, however, specifically deny the other statements attributed to him by Schweigart and Pennell. Personnel ' Schweigart's sister GALETON PRODUCTION COMPANY Manager Larry Chilson" testified that Heymann's remarks were made in response to a question from someone as to whether the Molders represented the foundry employees Heymann also averred, supported by Chilson, that he told the employees, at a meeting on September 18, that he would not close the plant if the Union were voted in but, instead, would make every effort to continue operations I deem it unnecessary to determine exactly what Heymann said to the assembled employees between the first and second elections For the purpose of this decision, it will be assumed that Heymann made the statements attributed to him by Schweigart and Pennell and that they were coercive If uttered, they cannot, in my opinion, reasonably be construed as a threat of retaliation because the coercive effect was dissipated by Heymann's later remark that he would not close the plant if the Union won the election but would make every effort to keep it open Accordingly, no unfair labor practice will be based on this part of the complaint ' 3 Announcing and granting wage increases The complaint alleges, but Respondent's answer denies, that on or about September 18, 1968, Respondent, by Heymann, "announced and granted wage increases to its employees for the purpose of dissuading them from supporting the Union " As stated, Respondent withdrew its answer during the hearing and admitted the allegation According, upon the basis of the admis- sion, it is hereby found that the Respondent, by announc- ing and granting Wage increases to discourage union support among its employees, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act B Discrimination In Regard To Hire And Tenure of Employment of Lottte L Schweigart 1 Motivation a Schweigart's activities, Myers' statements Prior to her discharge on December 19, Lottte Schwei- gart had been employed by Respondent for approximate- ly 9 years without interruption During this period she advanced to the position of utility girl in LVA, one of the most skilled jobs in that department Beginning in mid-June 1968 and continuing until the final election on December 6, Schweigart was demonstr- ably the most active proponent of the Union's cause in the plant Heymann admitted that he knew Schweigart was an "avid supporter" of the Union and "extremely active" on its behalf and Edward Raymer Schweigart's immediate supervisor, acknowledged that he had observed her distributing union flyers and had received reports from management personnel concerning her s Chilson left Respondent s employ in September 1968 See Crystal Laundry & Dry Cleaning Co 132 NLRB 222 fn I reversed on other grounds 308 F 2d 626 (C A 6) 137 union activities During the campaign, Schweigart solicit- ed signatures on union authorization cards from her coworkers, prepared union signs which she prominently displayed on her automobile, drove the automobile to work on Saturdays and parked it in the plant area, arranged and attended union meetings, wore union insig- nia daily, and openly advocated union support during her lunch and rest periods Schweigart testified, without contradiction, that, sometime between the first and sec- ond elections, Heymann asked why she was campaigning so vigorously for the Union, and, that, at employee and management meetings during the campaign, she contradicted certain assertions of Heymann and told him why the employees needed a union At a meeting of the LVA employees and Heymann in August , Schwetgart complained that Eileen Brass, a monitor in LVA, wasted a lot of time in conversations with Raymer and accused her of favoring some employ- ees and of being too strict with others According to Kay Treat," Schweigart asked Heymann to transfer Brass outs of LVA and Heymann said he would look into it Shortly after this , Brass was transferred to the mount- ing department but returned to LVA 2 weeks later ° Robert Myers, plant manager,10 testified that, before or after a staff meeting sometime between August 28 and September 19, Heymann told him that he would like to get rid of the union agitators 11 Initially, Myers testified that Heymann did not name anyone However, after being shown his affidavit by the General Counsel, Myers declared that Heymann named Schweigart, among others, In light of this self-contradiction, I do not accept this testimony of Myers Myers also recounted several conversations with Raymer in the latter's office during this period On these occasions, Raymer told Myers, according to Myers, that he would like to get rid of Schweigart because she was causing disruptions within the department by talking to employees at work and that, while he (Raymer) did not know the subject of the conversations, he assumed that Schweirgart was talking about the Union Schweigart acknowledged that, before or during t4e last campaign, Raymer cautioned Schweigart and other employees about talking while at work but asserted that, at such times, she was not discussing union matters and no reference thereto was made by Raymer Schweigart also testified that she was never disciplined for having engaged in general conversations with her coworkers while at work Indeed, there is no evidence of any rule prohibiting conversations during working hours Raymer did not deny the state ments charged to him by Myers Accordingly, I credit the uncontroverted testimony of Myers to the effect that Raymer told him he would like to get rid of Schwei- Treat left Respondent s employ on August 28 These findings are based on the credited testimony of Schweig trt Treat and Brass ° Myers was discharged by Respondent on September 19 " Heymann acknowledged that he could have expressed a wish that union agitators were not in the plant but denied saying he would try to get rid of them 138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD gart allegedly because she was causing disruption within the department by talking about the Union 12 Several other witnesses called by the General Counsel testified concerning conversations with Myers Thus, Treat recalled that, sometime before the first election and shortly after Schweigart's complaint about Brass, Myers told her that Raymer was angry with Schweigart for what she had said about Brass, that he wanted Schweigart out of the plant because there was "too much union pressure in his section" and, that Schweigart would be going out the door, Jan G Tarabori13 recounted a conversation at the Village Inn, sometime between the first and second elections, during which Myers declared that Tarabori was being watched and that he (Tarabori), Schweigart, and others would probably lose their jobs because of the Union, and, Schweigart, Hil- figer, and Pennell related, in substance, that, at the Log Cabin Inn on the night of the second election (September 20) or the following night , Myers told them that Heymann and Raymer wanted Schweigart out of the plant , some of the girls would lose their jobs if they were not careful, and Schweigart and other girls- active on behalf of the Union-would be fired after the election I credit the foregoing testimony of Treat, Tarabort, Schweigart, Hilfiger, and Pennell 14 These indi- viduals impressed me most favorably as truthful witness es and gave me no reason to doubt their veracity I am aware, of course, that Myers' remarks to Schwei- gart , Hilfiger , and Pennell on September 20 and 21 were made after his termination on September 19 How- ever, the uncontroverted remarks charged to Myers were obviously predicated on conversations had with Heymann and Raymer while Myers was still plant manag- er Further, they seem plausible in view of Myers' statements to Treat and Tarabort prior to his termination b The September incident About 11 40 am, on September 16, Schweigart received permission from Virginia Skutski , Respondent's nurse , to leave the plant for reason of health According to the credited testimony of Schweigart , she was also excused by Raymer at noon that day '5 Despite knowl- edge of her absence, Raymer recorded on Schweigart's personal record that she had failed to give notice of her absence 18 11 Aside from the assertion the record stands barren of proof of any disruption attributable to Schweigart Tarabort quit his job with Respondent on November 23 Raymer testified that he never heard of Schweigart s complaint about Brass at any time prior to the hearing but for reasons hereinafter set forth I do not credit his testimony 11 Raymer testified that he first learned of Schweigart s absence from the nurse sometime that afternoon 1" Chilson related that employees personal records are kept and maintained by the supervisors and Raymer admitted that he fills out such records under his control The calendar side of Schweigart s record shows a J for the afternoon of September 16 and the remarks side carries the following entry for that date P 0 (punched out) 11 40 no word G C Exh 1 I The parties agreed that the legend appearing at the bottom of the exhibit is to be interpreted as follows A-illness B-illness in the family D-business N-excused and J-no word After leaving the plant, Schweigart went to the office of a local physician She was treated for the flu and instructed to go to bed The doctor signed and handed her the following statement 9-16-68 Lottie Schweigart has `pyehtis' [sic] and unable to work this afternoon Lottte, in turn, gave the slip to Hilfiger that evening and told her to give it to Raymer and to report her off the next day Hilfiger testified credibly that, before commencing work on September 17, she gave Raymer the doctor's certificate and told him Schweigart would not be in that day Raymer averred that he found the certificate on his desk the morning of Septmber 17 He acknowl- edged, however, having read it before preparing the daily absentee report and entering the letter "A"17 in the calendar section of Schweigart's personal record for that day, noting in the remarks column thereof, "ill " 9 Dr slip for Mon " On the face of the certificate, Raymer drew an arrow from the word "pyelitis" to the words, "check this," the latter printed and under scored on the certificate by Raymer Raymer also added the words, "not in today," again printing and underscor- ing the same After this, he forwarded the certificate to the nurse Admittedly, this was the first time Raymer ever requested the nurse to check a doctor's certificate Raymer explained that it is his policy to check all doctors' certificates turned in by the employees in his department and that his notations were merely intended to elicit information as to the nature of Schweigart's illness He went on to say that he thought the doctor had written poliomyelitis but then the nurse told him it was something else, identifying the ailment as a kidney infection On September 18, Schweigart remained away ill with- out word to the Respondent On September 19, the day before the second Board election, Schweigart was still out ill and, by the close of business, had not sent word About 3 30 p in that day, Raymer checked with the nurse, switchboard opera- tor, and office manager to see whether Schweigart had reported off After this he went to Chilson and, again for the first time in any similar situation, requested a "ruling" as to whether the doctor's certificate covered only the afternoon of September 16 or extended to September 17, 18, and 19 18 After checking the certificate and the master sheet, Chilson told Raymer that he was of the opinion that the certificate did not cover a period beyond the afternoon of the 16th and that Schweigart was vulnerable to discharge for a violation of the "3 days no word" rule if she did not report off before quitting time Chilson suggested that they repair to Heymann's office where Chilson presented 11 The entry denotes that Raymer received word of Schweigart s illness 11 As stated Raymer s initial inquiry was in reference to the nature of the illness GALETON PRODUCTION COMPANY his position to Heymann. Heymann then called his lawyer but the receptionist interrupted the telephone conversa- tion to advise that Mr. Schweigart had reported his wife off. After concluding the conversation with the lawyer, Heymann announced that the notice was accepta- ble and Schweigart would not be discharged. On the next day, September 20, Schweigart felt well enough to return to work and did. Schweigart testified credibly that,'sometime during the day, she gave Raymer a certificate which she had obtained from her doctor the day before, 10 It reads as follows: September 19, 1968 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN. Lottie Schweigart is physically able to return to work on September 20, 1968. She has been under my care for influenza. Although it clearly appears from a reading of both certificates that Schweigart was infirmed and under a doctor's care from the afternoon of September 16 through September 19 and, although Heymann conceded at the hearing that she had been excused to leave the plant the afternoon of September 16, appropriate correc- tions were not made on the master absentee lists • or Schweigart's personal record, the latter of which contin- ued to show a "J" entry in the calendar section and the notation-"P.O. 11:40 No Word"-in the remarks section for that day, questions marks in the remarks section for' September 17, and "J" entries for September 18 and 19.20 Nurse Skutski testified that she corrects entries on the master absentee list" if someone reports off or gives word of illness but that, in this instance, no corrections were made and the certificates were filed with Schweigart's personal record. 2. The events culminating in the discharge of Schweigart On Saturday, December 14, Schweigart became ill while at work. At the end of the workday, she went to a doctor who gave her medicine and an injection. On the next day, Schweigart asked Hilfiger and Treat, who had visited with her at various times during the day, to report her sick to Raymer.22 The following morning , Monday, December 16, Mr. Schweigart requested Bonnie Hurler, also employed by the Respondent, to report his wife off. Hilfiger testified credibly that about 7 o'clock that morning, as she was putting on her finger cotts to begin work, Raymer walked by and she told him Schweigart was ill and would not be in that day.23 About 9 a.m. the same day, Hurler 11 Nurse Skutski acknowledged receipt of the September 19 certificate Raymer testified that the first time he saw the certificate was at the hearing. R° According to the nurse, the master absentee lists show that no word was received from Schweigart on September 17, 18, and 19 " This document is prepared and maintained by the nurse ss Schweigart had no telephone at the time. sa Raymer denied receiving a report from Hilfiger or anyone else, on December 16 or at any other time, concerning Schweigart's absence but I do not regard Raymer's testimony as worthy of reliance and I do not credit it for the following reasons: (1) In his prehearing 139 went to Heymann's office to discuss a change in supervi- sion made the previous Friday while she was away. During the conversation, Hurler told Heymann, accord- ing to the credited testimony of Hurler, that Schweigart was out sick. Heymann replied that he would take care of it.24 The next day, December 17, Hilfiger was delayed getting to the plant due to poor road conditions and, when she arrived, went right to work. According to Hilfiger, sometime that morning she called Betty Cornish, the acting monitor'21 to her station and asked Cornish to report Schweigart off to Raymer. Shortly after this, Hilfiger saw Cornish and Raymer together and heard Cornish tell Raymer that Schweigart would not be in that day. Two or three minutes later, Cornish returned to Hilfiger's work area, told Hilfiger that she reported Schweigart's absence to Raymer, and then engaged Hil- figer in a 10- to 15-minute conversation about Schwei- gart's illness and the high rate of absenteeism among plant employees generally. Cornish tells a different story. Her testimony was as follows: While Raymer was preparing the absentee report on Monday, December 16, and before he appoint- ed her acting monitor, Cornish approached Hilfiger and inquired about Schweigart. Hilfiger said Schweigart was sick and Cornish observed that several other employees were also out sick. The following day, Cornish again asked about Schweigart and was told by Hilfiger that Schweigart was still ill. Cornish did not report Schweigart off to Raymer on December 16 or 17 because no one had asked her to do so. affidavit dated February 13, 1969, Raymer stated that, in September 1968, Schweigart had been out 3 consecutive days without a word despite knowledge at that time that on the third day Heymann had accepted a report off from Mr. Schweigart and, therefore, that the absence was only for it period of 2 days This was a misstatement of fact which Raymer acknowledged in his testimony on the stand. (2) Raymer entered a "J" meaning , "no word," in the calendar section of Schweigart's personal record for the afternoon of September 16 even though he knew that she had been excused from work that afternoon (3) Raymer started the automatic discharge machinery in motion on September 19 despite knowledge that Schweigart had been absent only 2 consecutive days as Hilfiger had reported her off to Raymer on September 17 and Raymer himself had entered the letter "A," meaning, "illness," on Schweigart's record for that day (4) For the first time in any like situation, Raymer directed the nurse to check the nature of the illness specified in the September 16 certificate and later requested a "ruling " on its coverage (5) After telling the nurse he thought the September 16 certificate said Schweigart had "polio," Raymer exclaimed , "this operator should be to work " and, after being advised that the ailment was a kidney infection, asked, "why isn't she to work." It is difficult to understand how Raymer could reasonably have expected Schweigart to be at work if she had "polio," as he had assumed , or a kidney infection , as he was later advised (6) Raymer's testimony that the certificate covered only September 16 was contrary to fact In view of the foregoing , as well as demeanor , I regard Raymer's testimony as generally unworthy of reliance as it shows a bias toward Schweigart, and I credit it only when it conforms with other credited testimony or constitutes an admission against Respondent's interest. " Heymann testified that all he recalled of the conversation was a discussion of a management change but did not otherwise dispute this testimony of Hurler. SS Raymer appointed Cornish acting monitor , about 7:05 a in , Decem- ber 16, to replace, temporarily, the incumbent Clara Smogyi and she continued in this position through December 17 On December 18 and 19, Cornish was a supply girl. 140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD I credit the testimony of Hilfiger over that of Cornish. In my judgment, Hilfiger's version is inherently more credible fort think it unlikely that, after Hilfiger informed Cornish of Schweigart' s illness, Cornish would not have disclosed the fact to Raymer, particularly since heavy absenteeism was a matter of concern to Cornish as it was mentioned by her in one of the two conversations with Hilfiger regarding Schweigart's absence. Both Hil- figer and Cornish were employed by Respondent at the time they testified and neither was a disinterested witness for different reasons. Hilfiger, to be sure, was interested in the vindication of her sis'ter's rights and the rights of employees generally; and, Cornish, a witness for the Respondent; was'concerned about maintaining friendly relations with her. supervisor and management representatives. All things considered, Hilfiger's account seems more plausible to me as it contains a`,fair amount of corroborative detail which tends to,buttres's'her story. Schweigart was still ill' on December 18 and did not send word that day. Sometime in the afternoon of the 18th, Jan Fitzpatrick , plant manager, checked the master absentee list, following his normal practice, and found that Schweigart and two other employees had not report- ed off for 3 successive days: After this,' he contacted the' office manager, nurse, receptionist, and supervisors to see whether, in the interim,'word was received from any of these employees and was advised that one had reported ill. Fitzpatrick then instructed the supervisors of Schweigart and the other employee to `send them to his office the next day if they reported for work .26 On December 19; Schweigart felt well ' enough to return Ito work and did. As she was putting on her finger cotts, Raymer told her to go to Fitzpatrick's" office. Schweigart waited ,a few minutes as,,Fitzpatrick was delayed due to adverse road, conditions: Shortly; after he arrived, Fitzpatrick told Sch veigart' that she; had been absent for 3 days lwithout', 'oid"'afid v'foY this reason, he would have to let -her go. 'Schweigart' protested stating that' she had asked "some girls" to report her off and named Kay Treat, specifically.?' Fitzpatrick' retorted that he received no, word of the absence and Schweigart offered to prove that the girls reported her off. To this Fitzpatrick replied that it would have made, no difference because the rule requires Schweigart to call in herself. Schweigart rejoined that she had no telephone and was ill. She also declared that she did not understand the rule to require personal notice but, instead,' believed it was sufficient for an' employee to report off through an intermediary.' In the end,' Fitzpatrick suggested that Schweigart go `home and she left his'office.28 Schweigart then returned to the LVA room to ask Hilfiger for the keys to Hilfiger' s automobile'. Initially, Schweigart told Hilfiger that she was fired ,by. Fitzpatrick 26, These findings are based on the testimony of Fitzpatrick 24, Schweigart testified that she believed , but was not certain, that she' mentioned Hilfiger to Fitzpatrick and acknowledged that she did, not mention Hurler to him because she was too upset ' :e The facts above are found from the credited testimony of Schwei- gart, as corroborated in part by admissions 'of Fitzpatrick Testimony, of the latter in confiict,with the findings is not credited for not reporting off. Hilfiger voiced incredulity stating that she reported Schweigart off to Raymer and Cornish., Schweigart replied that, Fitzpatrick said the reports were of no consequence because she should have called in herself. Hilfiger refused to allow Schweigart the use of her automobile because Schweigart was too upset. Schweigart then went to another sister , employee Bonnie Seeley, and asked her to call Kay Treat. In the conversa- tion that ensued , Treat reported'that she had forgotten to report Schweigart off. Treat explained that Monday evening , December 16, Bonnie Hurler told her that- she (Hurler) reported Schweigart off to Heymann and, consequently, Treat did not follow through because she thought the matter was taken care of.29 After this Schweigart went to'Heymann's office where she asked why Fitzpatrick had fired her. Heymann told her that she had been off 3 days with no word. Schweigart replied that Hilfiger reported her off to Raymer and that Treat promised to do the same but had forgotten. Heymann answered that he was not aware of Hilfiger's report. Schweigart then suggested that Heymann call Hilfiger and Raymer to verify her story but Heymann declined stating that he 'did not have the time and promised to check into it. Schweigart then told' Heymann that Hurler reported her off to "somebody." Heymann reminded Schweigart that Fitzpatrick had taken over, told her Fitzpatrick was "setting the rules," stated that he (Heymann) had to back him up, but that he would try to, get Fitzpatrick to "bend the rule." At some point, Schweigart charged that she, was being ' fired because of her union activities but -Heymann denied it, About this juncture, Heymann brought up the Septem- ber incident stating that Chilson wanted to firerSchweigart for; a violation of the 3 ,days', no-word rule but,, that he had stopped him. Schweigart•; argued that Raymer; had l excused .her, from duty on September- 16, in order that she might. visit her doctor that, afternoon, and that; she gave Hilfiger a doctor's certificate to, deliver to Raymer on September, 17. According to Schweigart, Heymann replied that he had not seen the certificate. Schweigart then asked why she had not been told that she was so close to discharge but Heymann remained mute.30 , 49 I find these discussions from credited and mutually corroborative testimony of Schweigart, Hilfiger, and Treat i ao The above facts are found on the credited testimony of Schweigart and Heymann Testimony of Heymann at variance therewith is not credited In this regard , I note Heymann 's failure to deny telling Schwei- gart that he had not seen the doctor ' s certificate While somewhat ambiguous , the uncontroverted remark suggests that Heymann had no knowledge of its existence . Yet, Heymann testified that he knew the certificate was turned in and it, obviously, was a subject of discussion at the September, 19 meeting when Chilson argued before Heymann that it did not cover a period beyond the afternoon of September 16 At the hearing, Respondent emphasized certain omissions in Schwei- gart's affidavit as a basis for rejecting her testimony Thus, in the affidavit , Schweigart failed to state that, during the termination inter- views , she mentioned the names of Treat and Hilfiger to Fitzpatrick and those of Hurler , Treat, and Hilfiger to Heymann . Schweigart explained that she gave the Board's agent the same facts she related in her testimony including the names disclosed to Fitzpatrick and Hey- mann, but that he failed to record all of the information imparted. Schweigart elaborated on her testimony stating that the affidavit was taken after midnight, that she was unable to read the entire statement GALETON PRODUCTION COMPANY In the meantime, Raymer was instructed to release Hilfiger so that she might drive Schweigart home and Hilfiger was so advised. Hilfiger then proceeded to Hey- mann's office, and, like Schweigart before, asked why Schweigart had been let' go. Heymann replied that it was because of a violation of the 3-day no-word rule. Hilfiger rejoined that she reported Schweigart off to her supervisor on one day and to the monitor on the next. Heymann disclaimed knowledge of the fact but promised to: talk to Fitzpatrick to try to get him, "to bend the rule." Hilfiger asked what rule as Schweigart has been reported off but Heymann evaded saying that he would contact Hilfiger after he had conferred with Fitzpatrick. At some point, Heymann told Hilfiger she was excused to take Schweigart home. However, since arrangements had already been made with Treat for this purpose Hilfiger returned to work.31 Sometime later the same day, Hurler learned that Schweigart had been discharged and, as Heymann walked down an aisle near her station, she confronted him and inquired whether he remembered that she report- ed Schweigart off to him. According to Hurler, Heymann replied, "it had slipped his mind" but he would f talk it over with Fitzpatrick. Heymann testified that he told Hurler he did not recall but would not doubt her word. After Heymann left Fitzpatrick's office, Hurler stopped him again this time asking what Fitzpatrick said. To this Heymann responded that it would not have mattered that Hurler reported Schweigart off because the rule requires a personal call or a written note. Hurler stated that she never knew that to be the rule.32 Still later that day, Cornish told Heymann that she knew Schwei- gart had been sick .33 About, 2 or 3 days after the discharge, ' Schweigart received a statement of her final wages and deductions from the Respondent with a notation that payment would be made after certain tweezers and a glass, used for inspection purposes, were returned. As noted, Heymann promised to contact Schweigart after checking into her claim that she was reported off but the promise was not fulfilled and the discharge, effected December 19, was final. Schweigart applied to the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry for unemployment compensation. The Bureau of Employment Security ruled, that Schwei- gart was ineligible. She appealed. After a hearing, a referee of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review reversed the decision of the Bureau and allowed x because parts of it were illegible but , that she signed the statement because she assumed the Board agent recorded what she told him Granted the affidavit omits ' certain information, such omissions were satisfactorily explained by Schweigart in her testimony relative thereto Moreover , Schweigart impressed me as a truthful and forthright witness, sincerely recounting what she remembered to the best of her ability I am satisfied , therefore , that her testimony is worthy of belief and that the omissions in her affidavit were due to inattentiveness engendered by the lateness of the hour 31 I find these facts on the credited testimony of Hilfiger Testimony of Heymann in conflict therewith is not credited. 31 I find these facts on the credible testimony of Hurler and the implied admission of Heymann Testimony of Heymann at variance therewith is not credited 33 This finding is based on the undisputed testimony of Cornish. 141 benefits. In, essence,' the referee found that Schweigart "was properly reported off." Respondent appealed and a further hearing was held before the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review which affirmed the refer- ee and allowed benefits. Respondent did not appeal the ruling of the board of review. 3. Analysis and conclusions The complaint as amended at the hearing alleges, and the answer admits, that the Respondent discharged Schweigart on December 19. The complaint further alleg- es, and the answer denies , that Schweigart , was dis- charged "because of her activities on behalf of the Union, because she engaged in concerted activities with other employees for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection . . . . " The Respond- ent, conversely , maintains that Schweigart was dis- charged because she failed to abide by the company rule requiring notification of absence. It is clear that Schweigart was the leader of the Union's forces in the plant to the knowledge of the Respondent . It is also evident from Myers ' testimony that Raymer wanted Schweigart out of the plant asserted- ly because she was causing disruption within his depart- ment by engaging in what he assumed was union talk. But, as found , there is no evidence , beyond the naked assertion , of any disruption in the LVA department chargeable to Schweigart and no proof of any rule barring general conversations during working hours. In the final analysis, it is quite clear and I find that the wish expressed by Raymer to Myers was to get rid of,.Schweigart because of her union activities. And, the, wish was echoed by Myers in the form of warnings: to.Treat , before , the first election , that Raymer wanted Schweigart out of, the plant because of "too much union pressure in his section"; to ,Tarabori, between the first and second elections , that Schweigart and others would probably lose their jobs because of the union; and, to Schweigart, Hilfiger , and Pennell, on the night of or the night following the second election , that Schwei- gart and others would lose their jobs if they, were not careful . In addition,, Respondent has admitted that it announced and granted wage increases to its employ- ees, during the Union 's organizational campaign in Sep- tember 1968 to dissuade them from supporting the Union. In light of the announcement and grant of wage increases during the height of the Union 's organizational effort and the specific warnings of Myers which indicated Respondent's union animus and a propensity toward discriminatory action against Schweigart , the reasons given by Respondent for the final discharge require close scrutiny , and Respondent is required to adduce cogent proof in support of those reasons to rebut the case of discrimination indicated by all the above facts. Respondent bases the discharge upon Schweigart's alleged failure to notify the Respondent of an absence for 3 successive workdays prior to her discharge on December 19. The record shows that Respondent consid- ered a failure to report off under the rule a serious' matter for within 3 years it has terminated about 70 142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees for failure to obey the Company's 3-day no-word rule .34 To determine whether the Respondent was motivated by legitimate considerations in the discharge of Schwei- gart, it is necessary to examine the Company's reporting- off rule, the reason for the rule, and the practice thereun- der. On September 29, 1966, Personnel Manager Chilson retyped the standard rule, changing some of the wording, and posted the rule as modified, on the Company's bulletin boards. It reads as follows: September 29, 1966 NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES This notice will serve the purpose of refreshing, all employees on the standard policy for reporting absence from work. 1. Any absence for a period of three (3) calendar days, without notifying the Personnel Department, will be considered valid reason for separation. 2. In case of absence, the Personnel Department must be notified by telephone or in writing. If you must send word by another operator, please put it in writing. Quite often another operator will inadvertently forget to inform the Personnel Depart- ment, and the absence will be considered unex- cused. 3. If the duration of your absence is for a period of more than (3) days you must continue to contact the department at (3) day intervals. 4. An absence of five (5) or more consecutive days in case of illness must be accompanied by a Doctor's Statement upon your return. 5. In any case where there is a question as' to the length of absence anticipated, please request a Leave of Absence. These requests will afford production supervisors a better opportunity to schedule the workload. Remember, requests for a Medical Leave must be accompanied by a Doc- tor's Statement. GALETON PRODUCTION COMPANY In addition , Chilson prepared an employee 's booklet which was distributed , in September 1967, to all new employees and, 3 months later , to all old employees. On page 7 thereof , the following statement appears: An employee absent for three (3) days without contacting the plant will be considered as having resigned. The reason for the rule, as Fitzpatrick explained, is to insure that employees report absences and to clear from the rolls the names of those from whom no word is received for 3 successive days. All parties agree , however , that , under the rule in 34 Resp Exh 3A-3YY In its brief , Respondent estimates the number to be at least 99 practice, an employee may be discharged if she fails to report an absence for 3 consecutive days; that she is not required to report off in person but may do so through someone else ; and that a report may be oral or in writing. Further, it was established that notice may be given to the plant owner, personnel manager, the supervisor concerned, plant nurse, office manager, general foreman, or switchboard operator, anyone of whom is authorized to accept word of an absence.35 Each supervisor prepares a daily absentee report on which he records whether or not an employee has been reported off. The reports are forwarded to the plant nurse who collates them and draws up a master list of absentees indicating thereon whether or not an employee has been reported off, the number of days of absence, and, if known, the reason therefor. Copies of the master list are then sent to the plant owner, plant manager, office manager, and supervisors. In the event the list shows that no word has been received from an absent employee for 3 successive days, the plant manager sets in motion the discharge procedures. However, before final action is taken, a check is made toward the end of the third day to see whether, late word was received. If there has been no word, the plant manager instructs the supervisor concerned to send the employee to him for discharge should she appear the next day. If the employee does not report on the fourth day, a discharge letter is sent out that day. Turning now to the offense for which Schweigart stands indicted by the Respondent, namely, an alleged violation of the Company's reporting-off rule for 3 suc- cessive days immediately preceding the , date; of. her, , termination, Schweigart's answer,'on.which tlie,,General Counsel must rely, is simply that there was full com"pli- ance with the rule in practice.'In this regard'the credited testimony of Hilfiger and Hurler clearly reveals that",' on December 16-the first day of the absence-Hilfiger reported Schweigart off to Supervisor Raymer at the start of the workday and, later the same day, Hurler reported her off to Plant Owner Heymann. Finally, on the basis of the credited testimony of Hilfiger, it was also established that, on December 17, Hilfiger told Cornish that Schweigart was still absent, that Hilfiger overheard Cornish relay this information to Raymer, and that Cornish later confirmed her report concerning Schweigart's absence to Hilfiger. These facts impel me to the conclusion that Respondent's reliance upon non- as The finding with respect to persons authorized to accept an absence report is based on a synthesis of the testimony of Heymann and Raymer There is some confusion in the record as to whether the monitors are also authorized to act for the Respondent in this regard Heymann was uncertain as to their authority but finally affirmed testimony given in the employment compensation proceeding to the effect that the monitors are authorized to accept absence reports. However, Eileen Brass and Clara Smogyi, other witnesses for the Respondent and monitors in LVA, testified that, prior to January 1969, they referred all requests to report off to their supervisor And, Betty Cornish, an acting monitor in LVA, averred that it was "highly unusual" for anyone to report off to a monitor. For the purpose of deciding this case, I find it unnecessary to decide whether the monitors were authorized to accept absence reports at times material herein, and I do not pass upon the question GALETON PRODUCTION COMPANY compliance with the reporting-off rule was not a valid basis for the discharge Hence , I must find , in agreement with the General Counsel , that Schweigart complied with the rule in practice , on three separate occasions, by reports from Hilfiger to Raymer on December 16, Hurler to Heymann the same day , and Hilfiger to Ray- mer-by way of Cornish-on December 17, anyone of which was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the rule Since Schweigart effectively complied with the rule in practice on December 16 and 17 and thereby put management on notice of her absence, I must infer that Respondent 's reliance on Schweigart's alleged fail- ure to comply is a mere pretext to conceal another motive for the discharge 36 The only apparent motive was Schweigart 's activity in the Union 's abortive attempt to gain recognition The fact that the discharge was effected after the Union lost the final election and after the record in the representation proceeding was closed by the Region on December 16-the first day of Schwei- gart's absence-only demonstrates Respondent 's deter- mination to stifle any lingering hope of union representa- tion among its employees by eliminating the leader of the Union's organizational effort And , contrary to the assertion of the Respondent , the further fact that other known union supporters were still employed by the Respondent at the time of the hearing does not establish the absence of a discriminatory motive 37 The discriminatory character of the discharge is also indicated by the following circumstances (1) While it is clear from the record that an employee could report off through someone else under the rule in practice , Fitzpatrick told Schweigart that it would not have mattered if this had been done in her case because the rule requires that an absentee report off in person Shortly after this, Heymann advised Schwei- gart that Fitzpatrick, who replaced Myers on November 11, was "setting the rules," that he had to back him up, but would try to get him to "bend the rule", and, sometime later , Heymann echoed Fitzpatrick's rule to Hurler It is evident , therefore , that Respondent imposed upon Schweigart a new and different rule from that which theretofore had been the rule in practice and thereby subjected her to disparate treatment (2) Near the close of the final interview with Heymann on December 19, Heymann advised Schweigart that she was perilously close to discharge on September 19 for another alleged infraction of the 3 -day no-word rule but was saved from discharge by his intervention following a late report from Mr Schweigart As detailed above , the facts are that , as of the close of business on September 19, Schweigart was absent only 2 days without word as Hilfiger had reported her off to Raymer the morning of September 17 There is no room for doubt on this score since Raymer made the appropriate entry for that day in the calendar section of Schweigart's S" See Shattuck Denn Mining Corporation v N L R B 362 F 2d 466 470 (C A 9) 39 An employers failure to discharge all the union adherents does not necessarily indicate an absence of discriminatory intent as to those he did discharge " W C Nabors Company 89 NLRB 538 542 enfd 196 F 2d 272 (C A 5) Duro Test Corporation 81 NLRB 976 979 Stewart Warner Corporation 55 NLRB 593 610 143 personal record In light of the foregoing , it is clearly evident that there was no violation of the rule by Schwei- gart in September and hence no occasion for Respondent to have invoked the automatic discharge machinery In these circumstances , Raymer's journey to Chilson's office on September 19 for a "ruling" on the doctor's certificate was a frivolous mission and Heymann's rep- rieve later that day, based on Mr Schweigart's report, was irrelevant These facts demonstrate a predisposition by Respondent to rid itself of Schweigart as forecasted by Myers and give support to her claim that the discharge was not motivated by any failure on her part to abide by the rule in practice (3) Although Heymann promised to contact the indi- viduals Schweigart claimed reported her off and report back to Schweigart , having first refused to make an on-the-spot investigation for the reason that he had other things to do , Schweigart has not heard from Hey- mann in this regard since the date of the discharge Considering all pertinent facts and circumstances, I must conclude that Respondent has not come forward with substantial proof which is adequate to rebut the case of discrimination made by the General Counsel and that all the substantial and pertinent evidence in the whole record supports the finding that Respondent discharged Lottie L Schweigart on December 19, 1968, not for indifference to company rule but because of her known union adherence and activity , and that it used as a pretext to cover that motive an alleged failure to comply with the company reporting off rule Having failed in the attempt to bring about Schweigart's termina- tion on the eve of the second election in September, Respondent then seized upon the December incident as an excuse to accomplish its objective as found immedi- ately above I, therefore , conclude and find that Respond- ent's discharge of Schweigart was discriminatory, tend- ing to discourage membership in a labor organization, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above , have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade , traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce V THE REMEDY It has been found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act It will , therefore , be recom- mended that Respondent cease and desist from such unfair labor practices , and take such affirmative action as may be required to effectuate the policies of the Act It has been found that Respondent discriminatorily discharged Lottie L Schweigart on December 19, 1968, and thereafter failed and refused to reinstate her to her former position It will , therefore , be recommended that Respondent offer her immediate and full reinstate- ment to her former or substantially equivalent position, 144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of pay suffered by her as a result of the discrimination against her, from the date of the discrimination to the date of the offer of reinstatement Loss of pay shall be computed as prescribed in F W Woolworth Company 90 NLRB 289, and interest on such backpay shall be computed at 6 percent per annum, in accordance with Isis Plumbing & Heating Co , 138 NLRB 716 Respond- ent shall make available to the Board, upon request, payroll and other records necessary to facilitate the determination of backpay due The unfair labor practices committed by Respondent go to "the very heart of the Act"38 and there exists the danger of the commission of other unfair labor practices by Respondent in the future Accordingly, a broad cease and-desist order will be recommended 39 Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record, the Trial Examiner makes the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 Rodney Heymann, d/bla Galeton Production Com- pany, Respondent herein, is, and at all times material herein has been, an employer engaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and the jurisdic- tional standards of the Board 2 International Molders' and Allied Workers' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, is, and at all times material herein has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act 3 By discharging Lottie L Schweigart, on December 19, 1968, and thereafter failing and refusing to reinstate her because of her membership in or activities on behalf of the Union, Respondent has discriminatorily discharged said employee to discourage membership in a labor organization, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act 4 By announcing and granting wage increases to employees, on or about September 18, 1968, for the purpose of dissuading them from supporting the Union, thereby interfering with, restraining , and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 5 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record, it is hereby recommended that Respondent , Rodney Hey- mann , d/b/a Galeton Production Company, of Galeton, ae N L R B v Entwistle Mfg Co 120 F 2d 532 536 (C A 4) 38 N L R B v Express Publishing Company 312 U S 426 437 Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Discouraging membership in International Mold- ers' and Allied Workers' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization, by discrim- inating in regard to hire or tenure of terms and conditions of employment of its employees because of their union affiliation or activity (b) Announcing and granting wage increases to employees for the purpose of dissuading them from supporting the Union (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist International Molders' and Allied Workers' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos ing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities 2 Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Offer Lottie L Schweigart immediate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of earnings which she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against her in the manner set forth in "The Remedy " (b) Notify Lottie L Schweigart if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of her full right to 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 (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 and compute the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order (d) Post at its plant in Galeton, Pennsylvania, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix "40 Copies of this notice, on forms to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 6, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by 40 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board the findings conclusions recommendations and Recommended Order herein shall as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations be adopted by the Board and become its findings conclusions and order and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event that the Board s Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States Court of Appeals the words in the notice reading Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board shall be changed to read Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board GALETON PRODUCTION COMPANY 145 Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con- spicuous 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 other material (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision and Recommended Order, what steps have been taken to comply therewith 41 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that all allegations of the complaint not specifically found to be in violation of the Act be dismissed 41 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 6 in writing within 10 days from the date of this Order what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing , to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid or protection , or 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 , in conformity with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act WE WILL offer Lottie L Schweigart immediate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to her seniori- ty and other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against her WE WILL notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of her right to full reinstatement , upon appli cation , in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the above-named labor organization or any other labor organization WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Interna- RODNEY HEYMAN, tional Molders ' and Allied Workers' Union of North D/B/A GALETON America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza- PRODUCTION COMPANY tion, by discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure or terms and conditions of employment of our employees because of their union affiliation or activity, except as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act WE WILL NOT announce and grant wage increases to employees for the purpose of dissuading them from supporting the above-named Union or any other labor organization WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exer- cise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist the above named Union, or any other Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone 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 Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, may be directed to the Board's Office, 1536 Federal Building , 1000 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Telephone 412-644-2977