Rodney Metals Corp.

262 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Rodney Metals Corporation and United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (UE). Case 1-CA-6697 May 1, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND BROWN On October 13, 1969, Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent, Rodney Metals Corporation, had engaged in certain unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in con- nection 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 brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, except as mod- ified below. ORDER Rodney Metals Corporation, Respondent herein.' The issue litigated was whether Respondent on or about March 20, 1969, invoked unfounded disciplinary warn- ings against two employees, Andrew Cosmos.and Thom- as J. Jadlowe, because of their activities in behalf of the Union, and in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec- 151, et seq., herein called the Act. Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor practice. Respondent's motions to dismiss the complaint, made at the end of the hearing, are hereby ruled upon in accordance with the findings and conclusions herein.' After the hearing Respondent filed a helpful brief, which has been carefully considered. Upon the entire record and my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent, a California corporation with its principal place of business in New Bedford, Massachusetts, is engaged in the fabrication, sale, and distribution of fabricated metal and related products. Annually Respondent receives directly from points outside of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts steel, aluminum, and other goods valued in excess of $50,000. Annually Respondent ships to points outside of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts fabricated steel products valued in excess of $50,000. Respondent admitted and I find that at all times material herein it has been and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 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 the Respondent, Rodney Metals Corporation, New Bedford, Massachusetts, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as modified herein: In paragraph 1(b) of the Recommended Order and the fourth indented paragraph of the notice, supplant the word "other" with the words "like or related." In adopting the Trial Examiner's finding that the disciplinary warning notices meted out by the Respondent to employees Cosmos and Jadlowe were motivated for reasons proscribed by Sec 8(a)(1) fo the Act, we find it unnecessary to reach or adopt his additional rationale based on his finding that the conduct in question was not shown to have noticeably interfered with Manuel Brown's work TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ALBA B. MARTIN, Trial Examiner: This case, with all parties represented, was heard before the Trial Exam- iner in New Bedford, Massachusetts, on July 1, 1969, on complaint of the General Counsel and answer of H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (UE), herein called the Union, is a labor organi- zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A Background: The Organizing Campaign and Respondent's Opposition Thereto' The Union started trying to organize the employees of Respondent in New Bedford in the spring of 1968, and the campaign was continuing at the time of the' events herein. The parties stipulated and I find that Respondent knew that Andrew Cosmos and Thomas J. Jadlowe were actively organizing in the plant for the Union. The Union's field organizer testified without The Union filed the charge on April 30, 1969, and filed the amended charge on June 9, 1969 R Although the transcript of the record may not in all cases show it, at the hearing the General Counsel submitted to Respondent's counsel all affidavits requested during cross-examination of the General Counsel's witnesses a This evidence is considered as background evidence for whatever assistance it gives in casting light upon, clarifying the reason for, imparting meaning to, and assisting in the evaluation of, the disciplining of the two employees which was alleged as the unfair labor practice 182 NLRB No. 41 RODNEY METALS CORP 263 contradiction, and I find, that Cosmos and Jadlowe were the most active employees among the group promot- ing the Union Respondent was opposed to the employees' signing union cards or having a union and told the employees so in August 1968 On August 27 Respondent's president sent to or had delivered to employees a letter in which he cited alleged coercion of an employee by an organizer for "United Auto Workers " In this letter he stated, There is no need for you to sign a union card for United Auto Workers, the United Electrical Workers, or any other union We at Rodney Metals do not feel that a union would be of any benefit to our employees Most of you have worked at Rodney for many years and no one has ever paid a penny in dues to retain his job here at Rodney I hope that this will always be so In a letter to employees dated August 29,1968, the company president said, inter alia, We firmly believe that neither the UE or the UAW or any other union can be of benefit to our employ- ees Rodney Metals' record and program on wages and fringe benefits are as good or better than any other company in the area-we are proud of them- and no one has ever had to pay a cent in union dues and assessments to outsiders to gain these wages and fringe benefits In addition in several communications in 1968 Respond- ent's president warned the employees against signing a union card because they might get saddled with the Union without an election B Postlimitation Evidence In April 1969 Respondent continued the above theme by sending employees a picture of a blank authorization card for the Union , and a message alongside reading, IF YOU SIGN THIS CARD, YOU MAY NEVER HAVE AN ELECTION IT COMMITS YOU TO UNION MEMBERSHIP DON'T SIGN AND KEEP YOUR FREEDOM OF CHOICE i In April 1969, also, Respondent ' s president spoke to about 100 employees on company time in the plant He related the employees ' benefits and emphasized that Respondent's new Blue Cross-Blue Shield plan was as good or better in benefits than the plan in other union contract plants in New Bedford including that of 'Morse Twist Drill " C The Disciplinary Warnings On March 20, 1969, Cosmos and Jadlowe were sepa- rately summoned to Respondent's personnel office and given warning notices signed by their foreman, John Barros, and Respondent's personnel director, Donald Wetmore Present in addition to Barros when Jadlowe was in the personnel office were a company vice present and Wetmore In addition Respondent's director of engi- neering and production, William McLaughlin, had partici- pated fully in the management investigation , discussions, and decision to issue the warning notices , as his testimo- ny revealed Present when Cosmos was officially warned were at least Foreman Barros and Personnel Director Wetmore The separate "warning and notice of offense " handed to each employee stated that on March 15 , 1956, each of them had, interfered with Mr Manuel Brown 's work during Mr Brown 's working hours to the extent that Mr Brown complained to supervisors At the top of these warnings , just under the heading "WARNING AND NOTICE OF OFFENSE," appeared in capital letters the words, THIS WARNING NOTICE IS VERY SERIOUS- YOU WILL BE DISCHARGED IF THIS WARN ING NOTICE OF OFFENSE IS THE THIRD SUCH WARNING NOTICE ISSUED TO YOU WITHIN A TWO (2) YEAR PERIOD D Substance of the Offense The "offense' of these two employees was that the previous Saturday March 15, they had had three brief conversations an hour apart with Manuel Brown, a company watchman, about the Union as he was making his rounds and came near to their work station Cosmos and Brown and a third employee operated a "Sendzimir Mill," referred to as the "Z Mill " Brown credibly testified, and without contradiction, that he makes a round every hour, each round takes him about 15 to 18 minutes , and in the guard office between rounds he does anything he wishes, including listening to the radio and reading newspapers Respondent has only two guards and only one is on duty at a time There was much testimony concerning what was done and said by the two employees and the guard and exactly when and where I find that solution of the case does not require resolution of any conflicts as to whether given statements were made on Brown's first or second round or where with respect to the generator room By their demeanor Cosmos, Jadlowe, and Brown impressed me as credible witnesses doing their best to recall and relate the conversations of 3if months earlier They were the only ones who gave direct testimony concerning these conversations The third employee on the "Z Mill" was not called to testify Based upon their testimony and the inherent probabilities in the situation I find that the conversations occured substantially as follows The longest conversation was the first, which occurred about 11 45 a in when Cosmos and Jadlowe were having lunch at their regular lunchtime The third operator was running the 'Z Mill" and they were having lunch near it They were subject to call by the third operator if he needed them and they were being paid for their time, but Respondent permitted them to take time to eat during their 8-hour day, and they customarily started doing so at 11 30 a in Either before or after Brown had "punched ' the clock in the nearby generator room, but not while he was punching it, Brown and the two 264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees discussed the "Portuguese" dinner they were having, Brown being • "Portuguese." Cosmos asked Brown if he was interested in the Union 'and suggested that he sign a union,card. Brown declined and referred to how bad the unions were in the "20's and 30's" They discussed Brown's wages as'of then and as of when he had started with Respondent, and they discussed the number of stations,he had to punch.,Brown told them that' he made more than, the guard at a next door unionized plant and that the guard over there had to clean the toilets. Brown mentioned the possibility that if Respondent's plant became organized Respondent could discharge the guards and, hire Pinkerton guards for considerably less wages than Brown was receiving. Brown observed that "Goodyear" and "Continental Screw" had done,that. Cosmos borrowed from Jadlowe and handed to Brown a contract.the Union had with "Morse Twist Drill" and asked him to read it. Brown willingly accepted, the Morse contract and spent some time in the guard office between rounds looking it over. When he next was in their vicinity about an hour later, Brown returned the Morse contract and said substantively that he didn't see any benefits in it for `him that. he didn't already have, without 'a union., He' referred specifically to the provisions' in the Morse, contract relating to.'sick benefits, paid holidays, vacations, and rates of pay.. Brown indicated that he was satisfied as things, were with him, without a. union. On cross-examination Brown credibly testified that this discussion took about 2 minutes. During this conversa- tion Cosmos, Jadlowe, and Brown were all on duty,. During the second conversation Cosmos borrowed from Jadlowe and handed to Brown a contract between the Union and another company in the area referred to as "J. C. Rhodes" and asked hiin to read it. Brown accepted it willingly and looked at it during his between- rounds period in the guard office. On the next round Brown did not return the Rhodes contract and Cosmos spoke to him only `to the extent of asking him to return it the next round:' Brown said that he would, and on the next round he did so. E. Employees File Grievance Respondent had a grievance procedure established by it in the spring. of 1967. , Utilizing this procedure, on March 22, Cosmos and Jadlowe together filed a grievance against Barros reading,as follows: The accusations that we interfered with the work of Manuel Brown is completely false, and therefore the warning notices dated 3/20/69 are unjustified. We insist these warnings be withdrawn and removed from our records., As required under the grievance procedure, on March 26 McLaughlin interviewed' Cosmos and Jadlowe and heard their version of what took place..He also inter- viewed Brown, twice;, on March 27 and March 29. Then on April 1 he reported his, conclusion on the grievance form as follows: Based on interviews with the. above (Cosmos and Jadlowe) plus Mr. Brown, I find that there was interference. While the discussion may have started at lunch time, it continued on succeeding rounds of the watchman. On April 11 Personnel Manager Wetmore wrote on the grievance form: My investigations show that Jadlowe and Cosmos did interfere with Manual Brown on working time. Under the grievance procedure Cosmos and Jadlowe then indicated that they wished to appeal the grievance to arbitration. They later changed their mind when they learned they would have to pay for their own lawyer. F Respondent's Defense, and My Conclusions 1. Although Respondent now asserts that Cosmos and Jadlowe violated certain of Respondent's employee rules, the only reason given the employees for warning them was what was written on the warning notices themselves. Respondent's director of production, McLaughlin, testified that he, the general foreman, and the foreman, Barros, participated in the discussion lead- ing to the issuance of the warning notices. In addition Respondent's personnel director was present when each warning was issued and in addition a company vice president was present at one of the interviews. Therefore it may fairly be concluded that Respondent selected its asserted reason for its actions after due deliberation'. 2. Respondent's asserted, written reason was that the two employees had interfered with Brown's work on working time to the extent that Brown complained to supervisors. I 3. Respondent failed to prove that Brown's work was noticeably interfered with. Respondent did not prove that the watchman, Brown, had any duties other than to make his rounds and punch the stations. As the events herein occurred between about noon and 3 p.m. when the plant was in operation, presumably he was charged with preventing unauthorized persons from being in the plant and preventing company property from being stolen. The several minutes he paused on two rounds to talk to the two employees about the merits of the 'Union were not shown to have been a serious intrusion upon his performance of these presumed duties-particularly as he customarily spent 40 minutes or more each hour in the guard office and only 20 minutes or less' each hour making each round. Under all the circumstances I hold that Cosmos and Jadlowe were engaging in protected union activity. 4. Nor did the proof show that, Brown complained to supervisors about Cosmos and Jadlowe. Later in the afternoon of March 15, after Brown's contacts with the two employees about the Union, Jules Sabo, foreman in the shipping department, stopped in the guard office and he and Brown talked. Brown credibly testified that: Sometimes he'll pass my office. He'll step in and tell me a little joke or something. So, in the conver- sation I told him, I says, "Hey, Jules . . . the Union is at the door. He says, "Oh, ya, . . . it's about that time. They come around every year." Brown told Sabo that Cosmos and Jadlowe had tried to interest him in the Union and tried to get him to RODNEY METALS CORP join Brown credibly testified that he did not complain to Sabo about this, but simply reported it Respondent did not call Sabo as a witness and he was not shown to have been absent or unavailable In addition the substance of Brown's testimony showed that Brown was not in a complaining mood concerning the effort to interest him in the Union Thus he willingly entered into the discussion about the Union, willingly accepted and read two contracts (or parts of them), and took the initiative on the second round to discuss the Morse contract and how in his view it held nothing for him If he had felt any resentment at the approach toward him, he would have acted and spoken differently Two days later, according to Brown's credited testimo- ny, his foreman, Almeida, telephoned him at his home at night, told him he had heard about "this union activi- ty" from Sabo, asked how come Sabo knew about it and Almeida didn't, and asked Brown what had hap- pened Brown confirmed that "they were trying to get me to join the Union " This testimony suggests not that Brown was complaining to Almeida but that Almeida was complaining to Brown that he, Brown 's foreman, had not been told about this organizing effort, and that the supervisor was interrogating the employee about the union rumor Almeida was not called as a witness and was not shown to have been unavailable The only testimony in the entire record suggesting that Brown had complained to a supervisor was the testimony of McLaughlin, director of engineering and production, that Foreman John Barros reported to him that he overhead Brown tell Sabo that he couldn't make his rounds without being bothered Upon the entire record, and particularly as Respondent neither called Sabo nor Barros to the witness stand nor showed them to be unavailable, I do not give this testimony controlling weight and I find that Brown did not complain to Sabo or any other supervisors 4 5 Production Director McLaughlin's testimony estab- lished that in his investigation of the matter prior to the management decision to issue the warning notices, he learned that some of the conversations between Brown and the two employees occurred after Cosmos and Jadlowe had finished eating and while they were, therefore, back' at work Specifically he learned that when Brown returned with the Morse contract on the second round, Brown discussed "the ten paid holidays, the $60 a week sick benefit and the fact that Rodney had no union ' Although he must have known that at this point in time Cosmos and Jadlowe were working, the record is devoid of any suggestion by anyone in management that Brown should be given a warning notice for interfering with the work of Cosmos and Jadlowe on their working time 4 In view of the conclusions reached in items numbered 3 and 4 above Respondent s additional defense that the two employees interfered with Brown s rights is ill founded Under Sec 7 of the Act Brown had the right to refrain from joining or assisting the Union He exercised this right freely and without interference or coercion 265 6 In contrast to its disciplining of Cosmos and Jad- lowe allegedly for interfering with Brown , Respondent permitted much solicitation for approved organizations and causes on company time , which must have interfered with the work of employees For a company-employee organization called the Ven-Rod Club, during 1968 and 1969 Cosmos solicited memberships throughout the plant on company time , including solicitations of supervisors The club conducts raffles in the plant for televisions, turkeys, etc , and Cosmos has sold raffle tickets on company time throughout the plant Other employees, also, were shown to have sold raffle tickets During working time Cosmos has asked his foreman , John Bar- ros, to buy a raffle ticket Jadlowe credibly testified that on working time in the plant he has bought raffle tickets from employees Also, at Christmastime, a com pany vice president uses the supervisors to solicit employee orders for liquor at cost As all of this has been openly going on for years it must be occurring with the approval of management 7 In addition, solicitation by employees and some by supervisors occurs in the plant on company time for organizations not shown to be connected with Respondent , and this, too, must interfere with the work of employees The day before he testified a foreman asked Cosmos during working time if he wanted to make his monthly contribution to a Catholic organization Cosmos testified this happens monthly In April 1969 Cosmos solicited about six employees in different depart- ments to join a private golf club His testimony suggested that at least one of these was a leadman Jadlowe's testimony showed that in 1968 and 1969 other employees solicited in the plant on company time for a "Cape Verdian benefit dance," for the private golf club, for chocolates for the "Fair Haven Little League," and for candy in a tin for an undisclosed beneficiary 8 Respondent had a broad no -solicitation rule which prohibited solicitations "for any purpose whatsoever at any time on the premises unless authorized by manage- ment " This rule was presumptively invalid because it did not limit the prohibition to working time The preponderance of the evidence makes it quite evident that this rule was not strictly enforced In the absence of any proof it cannot be assumed that solicitations for the benefit dance, the private golf club, the Little League, or even the monthly solicitations for a Catholic organization by a foreman had the official approval of management pursuant to the rule But Respondent must have known about it and condoned it, because it was done openly and even a foreman engaged in it 9 It thus appears , and I conclude , that if violation of the rule was in any way involved in the disciplining of Cosmos and Jadlowe, as Respondent's brief suggested it was, it was a discriminatory enforcement of the rule because they were soliciting for the Union, which activity did not meet with company approval and which went counter to Respondent's antiunion campaign shown above Further, I conclude that alleged violation of this rule had nothing to do with Respondent 's issuance of the warning notices because Respondent made no 266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD mention of this rule in the warning notices or in inter- views with the two employees. 10. Respondent's brief suggested that the conduct of Cosmos and Jadlowe violated another company rule which prohibited " performing personal work of any nature during your regular working hours." The record established that Cosmos initiated the subject of the Union during his regular lunch period and that during the next round when the lunch period of Cosmos and Jadlowe was over, it was Brown who did most of the talking. Further, Cosmos and Jadlowe were not performing any personal work when they were soliciting Brown to join the Union; they were engaging in protected union activity. Further, this rule was not referred to in the warning notices or in interviews with the two employees. 11. Respondent seems to defend its action on the further ground that the two employees violated another company rule which prohibited the distribution of "writ- ten or printed matter of any description on company premises unless approved by management." There was no showing that this rule was ever enforced against the sale and distribution of raffle tickets, which must have had written or printed material on them. Further this rule was not referred to in the warning notices or in interviews with the two employees Further it does not appear to me that handing over two contracts was "distribution" within the meaning of the rule; and if it was Respondent permitted Brown to do it with impunity. 12. Production Director McLaughlin testified that dur- ing the past 2 years and 10 months, the time he has been with the Company, Respondent has issued no warning notices for violations of any of the company rules asserted in its defense and he knows of no such warning notices in the last 5 years. 13. Finally Respondent defends on the ground that it was willing to submit the matter to arbitration. Under all the circumstances of this case I hold that this willing- ness does not bar the Board from processing this unfair labor practice case. 14. Final conclusions: During the Union' s organizing drive and while Respondent abandoned neutrality and engaged in a counterunion campaign with letters to employees and a speech by Respondent's president, it disciplined the Union's most active employee leaders for something they allegedly did while they were engaging in protected union activity. As in fact they did not do what Respondent accused them of, the warning notices were undeserved and unfounded. As it is unlikely that Respondent would give these warnings for no reason at all, and as the only remaining possible reason apparent in the record is the union activity, I find on the preponder- ance of the evidence that it did so because of their union activity and in order to deter other employees from joining or assisting the Union. Respondent's action occurred in a plant where, to the obvious knowledge of employees, much solicitation has occurred on working time for years and continues to occur at intervals for numerous causes, involving some supervisors; with the obvious knowledge and approval or condonation of man- agement ; and with no apparent effort by management to stop it and no warnings given any employees for engaging in it. And of course the employees knew Respondent was opposed to the Union. Disciplining these two employee union leaders under these circum- stances was clearly discriminatory and obviously tended to deter other employees, who'might wish to, from joining or assisting the Union and thereby tended to weaken or destroy the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. (See N L.R.B. v. Burnup and Sims, Inc., 379 U.S. 21.) Upon the preponderance of the evidence in the entire record considered as a whole I find and hold that Respondent's action in disciplining Cosmos and Jadlowe as it did interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the rights guaranteed in Section 7, and that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a) (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 Respondent's opera- tions 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 I recommend the customary broad cease-and-desist order and the affirmative relief conventionally ordered in cases of this nature, where Respondent's unfair labor practices were of a character which struck at the roots of employee rights safeguarded by the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Rodney Metals Corporation, of New Bedford, Mas- sachusetts, is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discriminatorily disciplining Andrew Cosmos and Thomas J.Jadlowe because of their union activities, while per or condoning solicitations for other activities and causes on working time in the plant, Respondent interfered with, restrained,' and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby violated Section 8(a)(1). 4. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor prac- tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RODNEY METALS CORP 267 RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the preponderance of the evidence in the entire record considered as a whole, I recommend that Rodney Metals Corporation, of New Bedford, Massachusetts, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall I Cease and desist from (a) Discriminatortly disciplining employees because of their union activities ed Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material (d) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith ' ' In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board this provision shall be modified to read Notify said Regional Director in writing within 10 days from the date of this Order what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist any labor organization, to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activity except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 2 Take the following affirmative action, which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Remove from all personnel files and all other files and records kept by Respondent, all copies of and references to the warning notices given Andrew Cosmos and Thomas J Jadlowe on March 20, 1969, and the incidents giving rise to them (b) Mail or deliver individual letters to Andrew Cos- mos and Thomas J Jadlowe informing them that the warning notices given them on March 20, 1969, and all references to them and the incidents giving rise to them, are withdrawn, expunged, and removed from all company personnel files and all other files and records (c) Post at its plant in New Bedford, Massachusetts, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix "s Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region I (Boston, Massachusetts), after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized represent- ative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily post- In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 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 Sec 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 Judgement of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL withdraw, expunge, and remove from all company personnel files and all other files and records, all copies of and references to the warning notices given Andrew Cosmos and Thomas J Jad ]owe on March 20, 1969, and the incidents giving rise to them WE WILL mail or deliver individual letters to Andrew Cosmos and Thomas J Jadlowe informing them that the warning notices given them on March 20, 1969, and all references to them and the incidents giving rise to them, are withdrawn, expunged, and removed from all company personnel files and all other files and records WE WILL NOT discriminatorily discipline employ ees because of their union activities 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 labor organizations , to join or assist United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (UE), or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the pur poses of collective bargaining or any other 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 as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining members of United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (UE), or of any other labor organization 268 Dated By DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD RODNEY METALS This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive CORPORATION days from the date of posting and must not be altered (Employer) defaced, or covered by any other material Any questions concerning this notice or compliance (Representative ) (Title) with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 20th Floor, John F Kennedy Federal Building, This is an official notice and must not be defaced Cambridge & New Sudbury Streets, Boston, Massachu- by anyone setts 02203, Telephone 617-233-3300