Electro-Netic Products Corp.

482 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Electro-Netic Products Corporation and United Fur- niture Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case 13-CA-9084 June 17, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER By MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS On December 30, 1969, Trial Examiner Sydney S. Asher issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He also found that Respon- dent had not engaged in other unfair labor prac- tices alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal of those allegations. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions and an answering brief, the Respondent filed cross-exceptions and a brief in support and in answer to the General Coun- sel's exceptions, and the General Counsel filed a memorandum replying to Respondent's answerintg brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of-the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the ex- ceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this proceeding, and hereby adopts the findings, conclu- sions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, except as modified below.' The Trial Examiner finds that Respondent's discharge of employees Carolyn Gliniecki and Mary Roberts was not in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. The General Counsel excepts to these findings. We find merit in these exceptions. Gliniecki was hired by Respondent in August 1967 as a full-time assembly line worker at wages of $1.45 an hour. At that time she informed the of- ficial who hired her that she had a throat condition and that as a result was subject to sickness during ' In adopting the Trial Examiner 's finding that Julia Nelson , Angie Alder- son, and Claudia Ice were not agents of Respondent during their i nterroga- tion of employees, we do not agree that the Board, under the Taft-Hartley amendments , is bound by common law rules of agency but find that the General Counsel has failed to establish agency within the meaning of such cases as Dan Honard Mfg Co , 158 NLRB 805, 811-812 , Smith 's Transfer Corporation of Staunton, Virginia, 162 NLRB 143, 157, Finesilver 183 NLRB No. 59 winter months. The official told her to call in when- ever she was going to be absent and to report to work the next day.2 In August 1968, despite only an average attendance record as a rank-and-file em- ployee, Respondent promoted Gliniecki to the posi- tion of group leader and her hourly rate was in- creased to $2. Respondent concedes that she did a good job as a group leader. In March 1969, Gliniecki became active in the Union. On March 17, 1969, Gliniecki and four or five other employees met with a union official in a local tavern. Two supervisors who went to the tavern for a drink witnessed this meeting and sub- sequently reported it to Respondent's plant superin- tendent, Bob Galloway, and Respondent's vice president, Albert Stamiti. The next day, Gliniecki's immediate supervisor, Bruce Heyden, interrogated Gliniecki about the meeting. During the period from March 18, 1969, to April 23, 1969, the date of her discharge, Gliniecki was active in organizing and passed out about 25 blank authorization cards and also collected signed union authorization cards. Respondent's knowledge of Gliniecki's continued union activities is amply demonstrated by Heyden's interrogation of her on April 11, and particularly by her extended conver- sation with Stamiti on April 17, just 5 days before her discharge. During the April 17 conversation Stamiti asked Gliniecki "What's the problem with the girls," or words to that effect. When Gliniecki told Stamiti that the girls wanted more money and better insurance, Stamiti tried to impress her with the fact that the economics were such that Respond- ent could not raise wages without going bankrupt.3 In addition, on the day of one of the union meetings, Stamiti remarked to Gliniecki, "hey, your meeting is tonight." On April 23, Respondent discharged Gliniecki, allegedly for excessive absenteeism . Although Gliniecki was absent on April 21 and 22, in our opinion this reason was pretextual. We note that despite only an average attendance record, Gliniecki was promoted in August 1968, and given a sizeable wage increase. In 1969, Gliniecki's at- tendance record, according to her uncontradicted testimony, actually improved over her 1968 at- tendance. We also note that at no time was Gliniecki warned about her attendance and as a result of her statement at the time of her initial em- Manufacturing Company, 160 NLRB 1400, 1402, fn 3 ' Gliniecki's testimony as to this conversation is uncontradicted ' Gliniecki contended the Union was mentioned during the conversation while Stamiti claims that it was not We do not find it necessary to resolve this conflict as it is apparent from the context in which the conversation oc- curred that both Gliniecki and Stamiti understood that they were discussing the union activity at the plant ELECTRO-NETIC PRODUCTS CORPORATION ployment, the Respondent had reason to expect that she would have some absences.' Only after she became quite active in the union organizing cam- paign was Respondent concerned about her at- tendance and then discharged her without prior warning. Respondent's opposition to the Union was demonstrated on several occasions as detailed by the Trial Examiner. Accordingly, as a result of our examination of all the evidence in the record, and particularly because of the timing of the discharge so soon after she was called to the office by Vice President Stamiti following attendance at a union meeting on April 16, and told the plant could not afford wage increases, the precipitous nature of the discharge, and the condoning of her absenteeism prior to the advent of the Union, we conclude that Respondent discharged Gliniecki because of her union activities.' Accordingly, we find that Gliniecki was discriminatorily discharged in viola- tion of Section 8(a)(3) and (1). Mary Roberts began working for Respondent in September 1968 as a full-time assembly line em- ployee. In January 1969, at her request, she was transferred to part-time status. At the time, Manu- facturing Manager Bob Galloway told her new foreman, Clyde Castle, that Roberts "was a good worker." During the period January through March 1969, Roberts had a high rate of absenteeism. In mid-March, as a result of a dispute over her super- vision, Roberts threatened to quit. Despite her high rate of absenteeism, Foreman Castle urged her to stay and she did. In April 1969, her attendance im- proved considerably, with only one absence in April prior to the date of her discharge .6 On April 3, Roberts signed a union authorization card. Sub- sequently, Roberts passed out union authorization cards to some of the part-time employees at the plant at breaktime. She also attended a union meet- ing. On April 22, Castle coercively interrogated Roberts about whether she was a member of the Union, stating that the persons who placed union flyers on employees' cars could be arrested and in- forming her that two employees had complained that Roberts was pestering them about the Union. 4 By at least one standard , Gliniecki's attendance record was good Respondent gave a weekly attendance bonus to employees who had perfect attendance during the week Gliiecki earned this monetary bonus in 12 of the first 17 weeks in 1969 , while group leader Alderson earned it only 7 of the 17 weeks and Claudia Ice, Gliniecki 's replacement as group leader, earned it only 6 of the 17 weeks ' The Trial Examiner points to several factors in support of his finding that Respondent did not discriminatorily discharge Glmiecki We have considered these factors and conclude that they are not sufficient to over- come the evidence of discrimination discussed above In particular, we note that even though there are only three instances of independent 8(a)( 1) activity on the part of the Respondent , two of these instances were directed toward Glmiecki The fact that Glmiecki failed to protest when Respondent stated that her absence record was worse than other group 483 The following day Roberts was discharged, al- legedly for excessive absenteeism. The reason ad- vanced by the Respondent does not withstand scru- tiny. We find it significant that Respondent urged Roberts to keep working in March when she was not involved in the Union and when her attendance record was very poor. We also find significant that she was discharged April 23, immediately after Respondent's coercive interrogation about her union activities, at a time her attendance record showed marked improvement and that like Gliniecki she had received no prior warning and was, in fact, discharged prior to reporting for work. These facts lead us to conclude that she was discharged, not for excessive absenteeism, as ad- vanced by the Respondent, but because of Respon- dent's concern over her union activities. Ac- cordingly, we conclude that Roberts was dis- criminatorily discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, we shall order that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma- tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1), we shall order Respondent to offer Carolyn Gliniecki and Mary Roberts immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions and that they be made whole for any loss of pay from the date of their discharges to the date of the offer of reinstatement less their net earnings during that period. Loss of pay shall be computed and paid in accordance with the formula adopted by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Com- pany, 90 NLRB 289, and with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum as prescribed by the Board in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. leaders is not surprising as there is no evidence that Gliniecki had such in- formation The fact that Gliniecki was absent the 2 days prior to the discharge is not contended by Respondent as the reason for the discharge and, so far as the record shows, Respondent never made any attempt to determine why she was absent The fact that the Union was not mentioned during the discharge interview is not material as employers rarely tell em- ployees that they are being discharged for their union activities Finally, the fact that four other employees were discharged at the same time in the cir- cumstances has little weight . One of the four was Mary Roberts , the other discriminatee Although she was absent on the day of her discharge, the decision to discharge Roberts was made prior to her l o'clock reporting time and therefore the absence could not have been a factor in the decision to discharge her 427-258 O-LT - 74 - 32 484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Insert the following as paragraph 4: By discriminatorily discharging employees Carolyn Gliniecki and Mary Roberts, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 2. Renumber present paragraph 4 as 5. 3. Renumber paragraph 5 as 6 and delete the words "or that the Respondent discriminated against Gliniecki or Roberts within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(1) or (3) of the Act." ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Respondent, Electro-Netic Products Corporation, Carpentersville, Illinois , its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as modified herein: 1. Reletter paragraph 1(a) and 1(b) as para- graphs 1(b) and (c), respectively, and insert the following as paragraph 1(a): "(a) Discouraging membership in the United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discharging employees because they engaged in union activity or other concerted activity, or otherwise discriminating against them in regard to the hire and tenure of their employment or any term or condition of em- ployment, because they engaged in union activity or other concerted activity." 2. Reletter paragraphs 2(a) and (b) as para- graphs 2(c) and (d), respectively, and insert the following as paragraphs 2(a) and (b): "(a) Offer to Carolyn Gliniecki and Mary Roberts immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if these jobs no longer exist, to sub- stantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole in the manner set forth in the section entitled `The Remedy."' "(b) Notify immediately the above-named in- dividuals, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of the right to full reinstate- ment, upon application after discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act." 3. Substitute the attached appendix for Appen- dix C of the Trial Examiner's Decision. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX C NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT discourage membership in the United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discharging employees because they engage in union activity or otherwise discriminate against them in regard to the hire and tenure of their emplyment, or any term or condition of em- ployment, because they engage in union activi- ty or other concerted activity. WE WILL NOT coercively question our em- ployees about their union membership, activi- ties, or sympathies. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em- ployees in the exercise of their right to self-or- ganization , to join or assist United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other union , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to en- gage in mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from such activities, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership as a condition of em- ployment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended. WE WILL offer to Carolyn Gliniecki and Mary Roberts immediate and full reinstate- ment to their former jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent posi- tions , without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay in accordance with the Order of the National Labor Relations Board. WE WILL notify Carolyn Gliniecki and Mary Roberts, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of their right to full reinstatement, upon application, in ac- cordance with the Selective Service Act, and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. ELECTRO-NETIC PRODUCTS CORPORATION (Employer) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) ELECTRO-NETIC PRODUCTS CORPORATION 485 This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced , or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or com- pliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board 's Office, 881 U.S. Courthouse and Federal Office Building , 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago , Illinois 60604 , Telephone 312-353-7572. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION SYDNEY S. ASHER, Trial Examiner: On April 30, 1969, United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, filed charges against Electro-Netic Products Corporation, Car- pentersville, Illinois , herein called the Respondent. Amended charges were filed on June 30, 1969. On July 1, 1969, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint alleging that since on or about March 18, 1969, the Respon- dent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees by certain specific conduct. It is also al- leged that on or about April 23, 1969, the Respon- dent discharged Carolyn Gliniecki and Mary Roberts, its employees, because they joined or assisted the Union and engaged in other concerted activities. It is alleged that this conduct violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et seq.), herein called the Act. The Respondent filed an answer admitting the jurisdiction of the Board, but denying the other allegations of the complaint. On August 7, 1969, the Union filed second amended charges. On August 18, 1969, the General Counsel issued an amendment to the complaint, which contained additional allegations of inter- ference, restraint, and coercion by the Respondent. Upon due notice, a hearing was held before me' on August 26 and 27, 1969, at Chicago, Illinois. All parties were afforded an opportunity to be represented and to participate fully in the hearing. During the hearing the Respondent filed an addi- tional answer denying the allegations of the amend- ment to the complaint. At the close of the hearing, upon my own motion, I struck subparagraph VI(e) of the complaint, as amended, and the Respon- dent's corresponding denial, as redundant and un- necessary. After the close of the hearing, the General Counsel and the Respondent filed briefs. These have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record in this case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and it, is found that the Respondent is, and at all times has; been, an employer engaged in commerce as defined, in the Act, and its operations meet the Board's ju- risdictional standards;' and that the Union is, and at all material times has been, a labor organization as defined in the Act. A. The Setting The Respondent utilizes a system of manufacture which is essentially an assembly line operation. There is no conveyor belt; the product is hand passed from one worker to another down the line. There is only one shift of full-time employees (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) but a number of shifts for part- time employees (9 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.; 1 to 7:30 p.m.; and 4 to 8 p.m.). At all material times, the Respondent employed a complement of approxi- mately 200 workers, of whom about 120 were full- time employees. At all material times, Fred J. Kitty was the Respondent's vice president and general manager. Albert Stamiti, Kitty's immediate subordinate, also held the title of vice president. Under Stamiti was Robert N. Galloway, manufacturing manager,2 and beneath him a number of foremen, including Bruce C. Hayden and Clyde Castle. The Respondent ad- mits, and it is found, that at all material times Kitty, Stamiti, Galloway, Hayden, and Castle were super- visors within the meaning of the Act. The Respon- dent also employs a number of group leaders on the various feeder and assembly lines. The parties agree, and it is found, that these group leaders are, and at all material times have been, employees lacking supervisory authority. So far as the record shows, no union had at- tempted to organize the Respondent's employees prior to March 1969. On March 17,3 the Union held its first meeting attended by employees of the Respondent. The Respondent 's management became aware of this development almost im- mediately. The organizing campaign launched that day culminated on April 30 in the filing of a peti- tion (Case 13-RC-11856) in which the Union sought to represent the Respondent's employees in collective bargaining. The events with which we are here concerned occurred during the Union's or- ganizing campaign. B. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion 1. By Bruce C. Hayden a. Facts Although March 17 was a working day, Carolyn Gliniecki, a group leader, did not report for work ' The Respondent is, and at all material times has been , an Illinois cor- outside the State of Illinois poration with its principal office and place of business at Carpentersville, ' Both Stamiti and Galloway left the Respondent's employ before the Illinois, where it engages in the manufacture , sale, and distribution of elec- hearing herein tronic components During the calendar or fiscal year 1968, the Respon- ' All dates hereafter refer to the year 1969 unless otherwise noted dent shipped products valued at more than $50,000 directly to destinations 486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that day. That evening, about 7 p.m., she and three or four rank-and-file employees of the Respondent met with a representative of the Union in a public tavern in Carpentersville. About 8:15 p.m., while the meeting was still in progress, Castle and another of the Respondent's supervisors entered the tavern. Castle recognized the Respondent's employees and was told by the bartender that this was a union meeting. On the morning of March 18, Castle reported what he had seen and heard to Galloway and Stamiti. Both Castle and Galloway told Hayden, Gliniecki's supervisor, of the incident. Hayden came up to Gliniecki in the plant and asked her if she had been too sick to be at work the previous day but well enough to go out drinking. Gliniecki replied that she had been sick, and that she had had an appointment that evening with a representative of a cosmetics distributor or she would not have gone out at all." She then asked Hayden how he knew she had been at the tavern, and Hayden responded that Castle had told him.' On the night of April 10, Gliniecki attended another' meeting of the Union. On the next day, April 11, Hayden asked Gliniecki how the meeting went the night before. Gliniecki retorted that, if Hayden wanted to know, he should have gone to the meeting to find out.' b. Contentions and conclusions The complaint alleges, and the answer denies, that on or about March 18, at the plant, Hayden "interrogated employees concerning their union membership, activities and sympathies." The General Counsel in his brief states: It is submitted that Respondent violated Sec- tion 8 (a)(1) of the Act when 1. Bruce Heyden (sic) questioned Carol Gliniecki on or around March 18, 1969, as to the union meeting held at a tavern in Carpen- tersville on the previous night, and 2. Bruce Heyden (sic) asked Carol Gliniecki on or around April 11, 1969, how the union meeting of the previous night had gone, and 4. Clyde Castle and Bob Galloway informed other officials of Respondent of the names of 4 This was not the truth At the hearing Gliniecki explained " I couldn't very well tell him [Hayden) I was going to a union meeting " She added "What I do after work I don't think was any of his [Hayden 's) business " s The findings regarding the Hayden-Gliniecki conversation are based on a synthesis of the testimony of both participants Later that morning Glmiecki confronted Castle and accused him of hav- ing "squealed" on her Castle 's reply is a matter of dispute I deem it un- necessary to resolve this conflict ' The findings regarding this conversation are based on Glmiecki's testimony Although Hayden denied that he ever had a conversation with all the employees who had attended the union meeting of March 17, 1969. There is no contention herein that Castle engaged in surveillance or otherwise violated the Act by or during his visit to the tavern. I agree with the General Counsel that Hayden en- gaged in conduct proscribed by the Act on the two occasions when he questioned Gliniecki about meetings . Even though, as the Respondent points out, the Union was not mentioned in haec verba, nevertheless in each case the reference was clearly to union meetings. Therefore, the interrogations, in the context of Castle's almost contemporaneous in- terrogation, described below, were coercive.7 Moreover, they could reasonably be expected to create in Gliniecki's mind the impression that her union activities were under surveillance. However, I am not convinced that Castle and Galloway vio- lated the Act by informing other members of the Respondent's management of facts which they themselves had obtained without having engaged in any illegal surveillance. In addition, this matter is not mentioned in the complaint and was not fully litigated at the hearing. 2. By Stamiti and Galloway a. Facts Gliniecki attended another union meeting on April 16. On the following day, April 17, Stamiti called her to his office and, in Galloway's presence, according to Gliniecki: Mr. Stamiti had asked me about the union and I told him that I had been there, and he said- he asked me what we would gain by getting a union, and I says, well, we wanted more money, better working conditions and better insurance. And well, he had told me at that time, that in order to get better insurance, he could get us better insurance but he'd have to charge us. I mean, it would be taken out of our paycheck. And he says he'd like to give everybody a raise , he says, but the company can't afford it; and that before-you know, be- fore the plant would go bankrupt, he'd shut it down. He says it was like pushing up against a brick wall. He says that we just couldn't, you know, afford to pay any more than what we were paying. On cross-examination Gliniecki admitted that Stamiti also stated that the employees had a right to Gliniecki " concerning the union," it is to be observed that, even according to Glmiecki's versions of these two conversations , the Union was not men- tioned by name in either r Although March 18 is the only date mentioned in the complaint in con- nection with Hayden 's conduct, I do not consider that a fatal variance ex- ists between that allegation and proof that he again engaged in similar con- duct on April I I Haynes Stellite Company, Division of Union Carbide Cor- poration , 136 NLRB 95, 98, enforcement refused on other grounds 310 F2d844(CA 6) ELECTRO-NETIC PRODUCTS CORPORATION have a union if they wanted one, and that he was not going to do anything to interfere with that right.' b. Contentions and conclusions Paragraph VI(b) of the complaint alleges, and the answer denies, that on or about April 10, Stamiti, in the plant, "interrogated employees con- cerning their union membership, activities and sym- pathies." In his brief the General Counsel "con- cedes there is no evidence to support" this allega- tion. Paragraph VI(c) of the complaint further al- leges, and the answer denies, that on or about April 16, Stamiti and Galloway, at the plant, "inter- rogated employees concerning their union member- ship, activities and sympathies, and told them they were up against a brick wall and that if the Union came in the Respondent would either go bankrupt or would shut down." In his brief the General Counsel concedes there is "insufficient evidence to support" this allegation of the complaint "in as far as it alleges that Stamiti threatened that if the Union came in, Respondent would go bankrupt or close the plant down," but he maintains "that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when ... Stamiti asked Gliniecki on or around April 17, 1969, about the union meeting of the previous night." It is true that Stamiti interrogated Gliniecki regarding her union sympathies (what would be gained by getting a union), but when cou- pled with Stamiti's assurance that he would do nothing to interfere with the employees' right to select a union to represent them, such interrogation is stripped of its coercive character.9 And Stamiti's attempt to persuade Gliniecki that the Respondent would be unable to raise wages and remain solvent constituted, in my opinion, mere argument pro- tected by Section 8(c) of the Act. 3. By Clyde Castle a. Facts Mary Roberts, then a part-time employee of the Respondent under Castle's supervision, testified that on April 22, about 10 minutes before quitting time, she was working on the line. Castle called her aside . In his hand was a flyer announcing a union meeting to be held on April 23. These had been placed on employees' cars on the parking lot that morning . Castle asked Roberts whether she had heard "that they were trying to start a union." Roberts admitted that she had heard this. Castle inquired whether Roberts was a union member; she denied it. (This was not true; Roberts had in fact al- ready signed a union authorization card.) Showing her the flyer, Castle said that "the people passing e Stamiti gave a somewhat different version According to him, the Union was not mentioned Galloway did not testify , and the Respondent's able counsel stated on the record that Galloway's present whereabouts is 487 them out on the cars could be arrested." Roberts replied that she was not passing them out and had received one on her car also. Next, Castle stated that two employees had complained that Roberts "was pestering them about the union." Although Roberts inquired who they had been, Castle refused to divulge this information. Then Castle told Roberts that five employees "on the regular line" had signed union cards; Roberts responded that she did not know anything about that. On cross-ex- amination , Roberts testified: Q. Did he [Castle] say anything to you about stopping pestering employees about the union on company time? A. No, he did not. Q. Did he say anything to you about stopping pestering employees at any time? A. No, he did not. Castle gave a somewhat different version. Ac- cording to Castle, two employees told him that Roberts had talked to them about the Union during working time; Castle reported this to Galloway; Galloway directed Castle to ask Roberts if she were doing this, and if she admitted it to tell her to stop. According to Castle: I called Mary Roberts away from her position and told her that it had been reported to me that she was talking union during company time , and I told her that if she was, to please cease it. And she denied doing it and I told her to go back to work. He further testified: Q. Now, was anything else said by you or by Mary Roberts at this conversation in April? A. Nothing. Q. Did you ever ask Mary Roberts whether or not she was a member of the Union? A. No. Q. Did you ever warn Mary Roberts that she or employees could be arrested for putting leaflets on cars? A. No, I did not. b. Contentions and conclusions The complaint alleges, and the answer denies, that on or about April 22 Castle, at the plant, "in- terrogated employees concerning their union mem- bership, activities and sympathies." At the hearing, the following colloquy took place: TRIAL EXAMINER: There's no allegation here of an illegal rule against solicitation, is there? MR. POURITCH: No. unknown For the purpose of this decision it will be assumed , without deciding, that Gliniecki 's version is the more accurate s Blue Flash Express, Inc , 109 NLRB 591 488 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD As the complaint does not allege the promulga- tion, maintenance, or enforcement of an illegal no- solicitation rule, as the General Counsel at the hearing specifically disclaimed any such allegation and made no attempt to amend the complaint so as to include it, and as the issue was not fully litigated at the hearing, the matter is not properly before me for decision. I therefore need not, and do not, determine whether Castle, on April 22, directed Roberts to stop talking about the Union. I do, how- ever, find-in accordance with Roberts' credited testimony and rejecting Castle's denial thereof- that on that date Castle asked Roberts whether she had heard that the employees were trying to or- ganize and whether she was a union member. Cou- pled as these questions were with statements that people who placed union flyers on employees' cars in the parking lot should be arrested, and that two employees had complained that Roberts was pester- ing them about the Union (creating the impression that Roberts' activities were under surveillance), I am convinced, and find, that they constituted coer- cive interrogation violative of the Act. 4. By Angela Alderson, Julia Nelson, and Claudia Ice a. Facts On April 16, Lillian Schamne, an employee, at- tended a meeting of the Union. Angela Alderson, a group leader, also attended this meeting. On the next day, April 17, Schamne was talking to other employees about what had happened there. Her group leader, Julia Nelson, warned her that if she discussed the Union on working time there was a chance she might be laid off or discharged. On April 23, Nelson and Alderson attended a meeting of the Union at which some rank-and-file employees expressed their hope that advent of Union would result in the rank-and-file workers being permitted to select their own group leaders. Concerned about the security of her position as group leader Nelson, on April 24, sought a con- ference with Kitty. In response to this request, Kitty called a meeting of all group leaders. According to Nelson: Mr. Kitty said that he could not interfere when it came to the union, that as far as the union was concerned that he could not tell us what to do about it because he had no voice in it at all and it was up to us. If us group leaders wanted our own union, we could have a union of our own. There was not a thing that he could do about it. But as far as the union coming in and taking over the plant, this is not true, that the union-well, he would still run his own plant, and if the union would give the group leaders a hard time, that was no problem either because he would put us on salary. On the same day, April 24, Nelson and Jeanette Mewdo, another group leader, came out of the of- fice, each holding a slip of paper on which names were written. Nelson approached Lillian Schamne, an employee in the group of which she was group leader. Nelson stated she had been given a list of employees who "supposedly" had signed union cards, and that Schamne's name was on that list. Then Nelson asked Schamne whether Schamne had signed a union card. Schamne denied having done so. Nelson inquired "if you [Schamne] want to change your mind, otherwise you might get laid off." Schamne repeated that she had not signed any card. Then Nelson asked other employees in her group "if they had signed cards for the Union"; they all denied having done so. A little later, Mewdo asked one of the employees in her group whether the employee wanted to change her mind. About a week later, Schamne attended another union meeting. The next day Nelson stated to Schamne : "You signed a card for the Union." Schamne again denied having done so. Nelson then told Schamne: "well, there was a spy at the meeting last night and they snitched on you and they said you had signed a card." On April 24, the day after she had attended a union meeting , Alderson talked to Galloway during working hours in the plant. Alderson showed Gal- loway a piece of paper and Galloway pointed to certain employees. Alderson put the piece of paper in her pocket and took out another piece and ap- proached some of the employees on the line of which she was group leader. She said to each em- ployee that she (Alderson) heard that the employee had signed a union card, and "if they would sign this piece of paper, relinquish that card and turn the card over to the company, there would be no trouble." This conduct continued for several work- ing days. Some of the employees to whom Alderson talked admitted that they had signed union cards, some turned union cards (either signed or blank) over to Alderson, some refused to do so, and some signed a piece of paper tendered by Alderson, the contents of which is not shown in the record. Al- derson put these papers and cards in her pocket; the record does not reveal what ultimately became of them. During these conversations between Al- derson and various employees on her line, Gal- loway was on the floor and in a position to observe what occurred. On approximately the same days Claudia Ice, then a rank-and-file employee (later a group leader), told certain other employees that she (Ice) had heard they had signed union cards, and stated that "if they would sign this piece of paper relinquishing their card and turn it over to the company, there would be no trouble." Her con- duct was observed by Bernice Sturtevant, a rank- and-file employee who was active in the Union's behalf. Although it was working time, Alderson and Ice then summoned about five employees ("the whole front of the line") from the production line, all at the same time, and escorted them out, in the general direction of the office and the plant cafeteria. It is not clear how long they remained ELECTRO-NETIC PRODUCTS CORPORATION 489 away from the line, but apparently no other work- ers were substituted for them; the remainder of the production line was able to continue operations because these employees "just fortunately had enough work ahead." Galloway was not on the floor during this incident. b. The agency status of Alderson, Nelson, and Ice The amendment to the complaint alleges , and the answer thereto denies, that during the events re- lated above Nelson, Ice, and Alderson "were agents of Respondent acting on its behalf" and that, as such, they engaged in surveillance of union acitvi- ties, coercive interrogation of employees, and threats of reprisals. The General Counsel made it clear at the hearing that, to support these allega- tions, he does not rely on the fact that Alderson and Nelson were group leaders, as group leaders are nonsupervisory employees; he relies only on agency. And on this subject the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently stated: Under the Taft-Hartley Amendments, more is required to charge the [employer] than that those [alleged to be his agents ] act "in the in- terest of the employer." Under those amend- ments, employers are responsible only for the acts of their common law agents.10 The General Counsel points to certain facts to bolster his case on common law agency: 1. "At least three group leaders [Nelson, Mew- do, and Alderson] almost simultaneously inter- rogated employees during working time about their union sympathies." This may logically be explained by the events of the April 23 meeting of the Union. After that, it is not surprising that the group leaders-fearing loss of their jobs by union action- banded together to oppose the Union. And, as non- supervisory employees, their right to engage in such concerted activities is proctected by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Shortly before Nelson herself engaged in in- terrogation of employees and antiunion activities on working time, she had instructed the employees on her line not to discuss the Union on working time. But putting aside her lack of authority to issue such an order (she was a nonsupervisory em- ployee), the mere fact that her behavior was unfair or inconsistent does not tend to prove that the Respondent had made her its agent. 3. "Just before [Nelson and Mewdo] inter- rogated employees as to their union sympathies they were seen coming from the direction of Respondent's offices with pieces of paper in their hands," and that "Nelson told Shamne . . . `that she had gotten"' this list. But Mewdo was not alleged to be an agent. Nelson testified: Q. Did any supervisor request or ask you or direct you to report on the union activities of any other employees? A. No. Moreover, her statement to Schamne about the list does not help the General Counsel's case, because in his brief he states: "Admittedly the mere claims by Angie Alderson and Claudia Ice that they were acting as agents of Respondent ... do not ipso facto make them agents of Respondent." The same may be said for Nelson. Agency must be shown by some act or acquiescence of the alleged principal. 4. "Galloway pointed out to Alderson the em- ployees she interrogated" and that "this took place on working time." In this connection, the General Counsel emphasizes that Galloway had instructed Castle to tell Roberts to cease talking about the Union on company time. It is significant, however, that there existed no rule prohibiting solicitation at any time; moreover no employee testified about having been warned not to talk about the Union on company time." In the absence of such a rule, an employer cannot be faulted merely because he per- mits, or even encourages, antiunion activity on working time. 1' 5. Alderson and Ice "took employees from their working stations during working time. . . . It seems very unlikely this could be done without the knowledge of any of Respondent's officials." But this incident must be evaluated in the light of all the surrounding circumstances, including the admission of the General Counsel in his brief that "Galloway was not on the floor when this occurred." Moreover, even had Galloway known what was going on, he was not obliged to put a halt to the an- tiunion activity. His failure to do so is not entitled to more than slight probative weight on the agency issue. 6. "Respondent did not call Angie Alderson or Claudia Ice as witnesses," and "It is highly unlikely that Alderson was collecting union authorization cards to keep for herself." However, it was not shown that the purported agents turned over any authorization cards to the Respondent, and the fact that two of them did not testify does not supply the missing evidence. Moreover, given the antagonism of Nelson and Alderson toward the Union arising from the union meeting of April 23, it is not unlike- ly that they may have collected cards and antiunion signatures on their own initiative, and then destroyed the cards. 7. "The activities of these group leaders took place only a very few days after Stamiti had told a 10 N L R B v Master Stevedores Association of Texas , eta! , 418 F 2d 140 (C A 5) " As previously mentioned, Roberts denied receiving such a warning The only testimony that such a warning was ever given came from Castle, a supervisor, and he testified that employees have alvays been permitted to converse with one another during working time, regardless of subject matter, so long as the talking does not interfere with their work 12 The General Counsel cites Dan Howard Mfg Co , and Dan Howard Sportswear, Inc 158 NLRB 805, 811-812 There, however, the agent's activity "was in the teeth of the no-solicitation rule" Id at 812 Here, there was no such rule I therefore consider that case inapposite 490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD group leader that group leaders were expected to be for the Company and only a few days after the discharge for union activities of one group leader, Carol Gliniecki." It is true that Gliniecki, then a group leader , testified that on April 17, Galloway "said something about being a group leader was sup- posed to be for the company." But in my opinion this vague testimony does not rise to the dignity of adequate proof that a direct order was issued or that an agency relationship was intended . Rather, I view it either as a protected attempt to persuade or as the expression of a pious hope . Moreover, none of the alleged agents were present during this inter- view, nor was its purport communicated to any of them , so far as the record shows. Finally , as related below , I am not convinced that Gliniecki's discharge was proved to be discriminatory. 8. "Stamiti [ sic] had told the group leaders at the meeting of April 24, 1969, that if the group leaders carried on their antiunion activities and the Union got in, they would be promoted to super- visors and taken out of the unit." It is true, as quoted above , that Kitty promised to put the group leaders on salary, but only "if the union would give the group leaders a hard time ," i.e., would demand the right to select the group leaders without management participation . This is a far cry from proving agency . It can reasonably be viewed merely as a promise of assistance by the Respondent in case the Union should make demands, during bar- gaining, which the group leaders considered detri- mental to their interests. On balance , while the matter is not entirely free from doubt , I conclude that the General Counsel has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Alderson , Nelson , or Ice was at any time an agent of the Respondent . Accordingly, the Respondent is not chargeable with their conduct. C. The Discharge of Carolyn Gliniecki 1. Facts Carolyn Gliniecki began to work for the Respon- dent in August 1967 as a full-time assembly line worker , at wages of $ 1.45 per hour . In August 1968, she was promoted to group leader of a line of approximately 30 workers , and her hourly rate was increased to $2. Hayden was her immediate superi- or. Gliniecki was one of the four or five employees of the Respondent who attended the first union meeting on March 17 in the tavern in Carpenters- ville. She played a part in obtaining the attendance there of some of the other employees. She signed a union authorization card at that meeting, and was given 50 blank cards to distribute . As related above , she was seen there by Castle , and the fact of her presence related to Galloway and Hayden on the next day ; Hayden thereupon illegally inter- rogated her about her attendance. Gliniecki handed out about 25 blank authoriza- tion cards to her fellow employees ; some signed them and gave them back to her . These activities took place on nonworking time . As related above, Gliniecki attended another union meeting on April 10, and April 11 was again coercively questioned by Hayden. And as previously described , she at- tended another such meeting on April 16; on the next day Stamiti summoned her to his office and, after asking what the employees would gain through a union , attempted to convince Gliniecki that the Respondent could not raise wages without courting financial disaster . In addition , on the day of one of these three meetings , Stamiti remarked to Gliniecki "hey, your meeting is tonight." Gliniecki was absent on April 21 and 22, but returned to work on April 23. At or about noon that day Gliniecki was called to Stamiti 's office. In Galloway's presence, Stamiti announced he had an unpleasant duty to perform. He showed Gliniecki a paper containing the percentages of absences of all group leaders. According to Gliniecki's testimony, Stamiti then stated that Gliniecki had been absent "quite a bit, more than the rest of the group leaders," and because of this he would have to let her go . According to Stamiti 's testimony , he told her: Carolyn, I'm letting you go for poor attendance I think I said. . . . She really didn't say very much. I think she just stood there and nodded her head. . . . I think I said that as a group leader we expect you to set examples ... for the good. Your attendance, based on our review , is ... no better than [that of] the average plant performer, and you're three to four times worse than the average group leader [in) attendance . So, on that basis I'm going to let you go, Carolyn. Within an hour, Gliniecki clocked out and left the plant. So far as the record shows, she has not returned. Her final timecard bears the notation: "Terminated Excessive absenteeism." A few weeks after her discharge, Gliniecki 's position as group leader was filled by promoting Ice, a rank-and-file employee. 2. Contentions of the parties The complaint alleges that on or about April 23, the Respondent discharged Gliniecki because "she joined or assisted the Union and/or had engaged in other union or concerted activities ." The answer admits that on April 23 the Respondent discharged five employees, including Gliniecki, but denies that it did so for the reason alleged in the complaint. On the contrary , the answer alleges that Gliniecki was discharged "for good and lawful cause , namely, for excessive absenteeism." The issue thus narrows down to a question of motivation , the Generai Counsel and the Union maintaining that the motivating factor was Gliniecki 's known support of the Union , and the Respondent contending, conver- ELECTRO-NETIC PRODUCTS CORPORATION 491 sely, that the motivating factor was Gliniecki's ex- cessive absenteeism. 3. Conclusions Absenteeism had been a problem at the Respon- dent's plant for some time. To combat absenteeism the Respondent promulgated a rule (not rigid, but flexible) that 3 days' continuous absence without notification constituted grounds for discharge; for a while maintained and posted a weekly list of em- ployees who had been absent; and awarded a weekly cash bonus to any full-time employee who worked a full 40-hour week without an absence. Despite these measures, the problem persisted. Therefore Stamiti and Galloway conferred infor- mally from time to time concerning which offend- ers should be discharged. There were no hard- and-fast rules. Other supervisors also occasionally discharged employees for excessive absenteeism. From the beginning of 1969 to the date of Gliniecki's discharge, the Respondent discharged, because of excessive absenteeism, an average of about seven employees monthly. (See Appendix.) It is against this background that we must assess Gliniecki's discharge. Gliniecki had been considered "an excellent worker." As a rank-and-file employee her absentee record had been average. When she was promoted to group leader, she was told (as apparently all rank-and-file employees promoted to group leader were told) that she would be expected to set a good example for the employees on her production line. During her final 17 weeks of employment by the Respondent, she attained a weekly attendance bonus 12 times, was absent 8 full days, and her total absences (full days plus partial days) amounted to 70 hours. (See Appendix B.) Stamiti testified that, before deciding to discharge Gliniecki, he compared her record of absences with that of all the other group leaders, and ascertained that her record was the worst. Stamiti impressed me as a candid and forthright wit- ness,13 and his testimony in this respect fits in well with other evidence: The testimony of Hayden that, about 2 months before Gliniecki's discharge, he complained to Galloway about Gliniecki's absen- teeism ; the fact that when Gliniecki was discharged on April 23, she was told she was the worst of the group leaders and shown the figures on which this statement presumably was based; and comparison of Gliniecki's absentee record with those of Alder- son and Nelson, the only other group leaders for whom figures are available in the record. It is true that in the first 17 weeks of 1969, Alderson only at- tained the attendance bonus 7 times, as against 12 for Gliniecki and 12 for Nelson. On the other hand, during this period Nelson was only absent I or 2 full days and Alderson was only absent 4 full days'' as against Gliniecki's 8, and Alderson was absent a total of only 49.75 hours as against 70 for Gliniecki. (See Appendix B.)15 There is no doubt that the decision to discharge Gliniecki was made by Stamiti on the morning of April 23, and that for some time before that Stamiti had known that Gliniecki was a union supporter. Yet this does not add up to convincing proof of dis- crimination against Gliniecki. In view of the rela- tively minor violations of Section 8(a)(1) found herein (none of them by Stamiti); the failure of Gliniecki to protest Stamiti's statement (reinforced by figures shown her at the time) that her absentee record was worse than that of any other group leader; Gliniecki's absence on 2 consecutive days immediately prior to her discharge; the fact that the Union was not mentioned during Gliniecki's final interview with Stamiti; and the fact that four other employees were discharged for excessive absentee- ism at the same time, Gliniecki's discharge would seem to have been accomplished in a routine manner for valid business reasons. I therefore con- clude that, although the matter is not entirely free from doubt, the General Counsel has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Gliniecki's discharge was motivated, in substantial part, by antiunion or discriminatory considerations. D. The Discharge of Mary Roberts 1. Facts Mary Roberts began to work for the Respondent in September 1968, as a full-time assembly line worker, under Hayden's supervision. In January she requested Galloway to transfer her to part-time work. In -response, Galloway assigned her to Cas- tle's part-time production line, with hours from 1 to 7:30 p.m. At the time, Galloway told Castle that Roberts "was a good worker." In mid-March Roberts announced her intention to leave the Respondent's employ. However, Castle asked her to reconsider, and she accordingly remained. On April 3 Roberts signed an authorization card for the Union. She attended a union meeting and was given about nine blank authorization cards to distribute. During the early part of April, Roberts passed out these cards to some of the part-time em- ployees at the plant at breaktime. As previously re- lated in more detail, on April 22 Castle coercively questioned Roberts about whether she had heard " This is based on several factors his demeanor on the witness stand, the fact that his testimony stood up under cross -examination , and the fact that, when he testified, he was no longer employed by the Respondent '" Excluding the 2-day interval (payweek ending March 14) between the time she quit and the time she returned to work " The statement In the General Counsel's brief "Moreover the records reveal that during this period of time Alderson missed more working hours than did Glmiecki" is not supported by the record Even if the 2-day inter- val between Alderson's quitting and her rehire should be viewed as an "absence," which I deem to be erroneous, the total hours missed by Gliniecki would still exceed Alderson's total 492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD "that they were trying to start a union" and about whether she was a member of the Union, stated that the individuals who passed out union flyers on employees' cars in the parking lot "could be ar- rested," and informed her that two employees (whose identity Castle would not reveal) had com- plained to him that Roberts "was pestering them about the Union." On the next day, April 23, Roberts was due to re- port for work at 1 p.m. About 12:40 p.m., realizing that she would be late, Roberts telephoned to the Respondent's plant and informed Carolyn Muscari, the receptionist, that she (Roberts) would arrive late; Muscari replied "it was all right."16 About 3:45 p.m. Muscari telephoned to Roberts and stated that Roberts "was terminated because of twenty-four percent absenteeism." Roberts asked: "Is that all the notice I get?" and Muscari replied "Yes." So far as the record shows, this was the last communication between Roberts and anyone con- nected with the Respondent. On Roberts' final timecard appears the notation: "Terminate-Absen- teeism." 2. Contentions and conclusions The opposing positions of the parties regarding Roberts' discharge are basically the same as their positions regarding Gliniecki's discharge. Stamiti, who made the decision to discharge Roberts, testified flatly: "I discharged Mary Roberts because of an absentee record, for no other reason." This testimony, if believed, is a complete defense to the allegation that Roberts' discharge was discriminato- ry. It is undoubtedly true that by April 22, Castle, Roberts' immediate superior, suspected Roberts' in- terest in the Union," and this suspicion is attributa- ble to the Respondent. However, analysis of Roberts' attendance record shows that her absentee record was dismal indeed. During the last 17 weeks of her employment with the Respondent, she averaged slightly over 24 work hours per week, although a full workweek for part-time employees normally is 30 hours.18 During this period she was absent 17 days- averaging 1 day per week. Hours that she worked totalled 327-1/2 while hours that she missed amounted to 100-1/2. Certainly this is not a record which covers Roberts with glory. The only other nongroup leader whose absence appears in the record is Ice , a full-time employee. During the same period Ice was only absent 3 full days and her hours missed totalled only 49. (See Appendix B.) In view of the persuasive testimony of Stamiti re- garding his reason for discharging Roberts, the validity of his stated reason in the light of Roberts' absentee record , and the fact that four other em- ployees were simultaneously discharged for exces- sive absenteeism , it would seem likely that Roberts was the victim of a routine procedure adopted and adhered to in the exercise of sound business discre- tion, which should not lightly be disturbed.'s It is accordingly concluded that the General Counsel has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Roberts ' prounion activities or sym- pathies constituted a substantial motivating factor in her discharge. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in this case , I make the fol- lowing: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Electro-Netic Products Corporation is, and at all material times has been, an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is, and at all material times has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By coercively interrogating its employees re- garding their union membership, activity, and sym- pathies, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing them in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has en- gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. The above-described unfair labor practices tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob- structing commerce and the free flow of commerce, and constitute unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 5. The General Counsel has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that either Alder- son, Nelson, or Ice was, at any material time, an agent of the Respondent within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(13) of the Act, or that the Respondent dis- criminated against Gliniecki or Roberts within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) or (3) of the Act. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: 16 Castle testified that employees who were going to be late or absent "normally call the officegirl, and she records it on a pad of paper (but) she doesn't make it a point to inform anybody " There is nothing in the record to indicate that Muscari had authority to excuse absences or tardi- ness " When Castle began his conversation with Roberts that day, he of course had grounds for suspecting Roberts' interest in the Union During the conversation she denied that she was a union member There is no way of determining from the record whether Castle' s suspicions were allayed by her denial Contrast American Freightways Co , Inc , 124 NLRB 146 " In this connection , the record shows that the payweek ending April 11, unlike other payweeks , was only 24 hours 19 As the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has said "management is for management Neither Board nor Court can second- guess it or give it gentle guidance by over-the-shoulder supervision NLRB v McGahey, 233 F 2d 406,413 ELECTRO-NETIC PRODUCTS CORPORATION 493 RECOMMENDED ORDER It is recommended that Electro-Netic Products Corporation, Carpentersville, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Coercively interrogating its employees con- cerning their union membership, activities, or sym- pathies. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights protected by Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be af- fected 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 amended. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which is found will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its plant in Carpentersville, Illinois, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix C [Board's Appendix substituted for Trial Ex- aminer's]."20 Copies of said notice, on forms pro- vided by the Regional Director for Region 13, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representa- tive, shall be posted by the Respondent immediate- ly upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em- ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.21 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint herein be dismissed , insofar as it alleges that the Respondent violated the Act, as amended, except as specifically found herein. 30 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 Na- tional 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 " Z' 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 " 494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX A Employees TerminaLea for Absenteeism Workweeks ending December 6, 1968, through April 25, 1969 Payweek Name Consecutive ending days absent a, 12/6/68 4alker, Pat 12/13/68 Salyers, Linda 12/13/68 Yell, Evelyn 12/13/68 Shults, Linda 1/3/69 Porter, Dave 1/3/69 Jones, Jean 1/17/69 Feliciano, Josefina 1/17/69 Roeder, Carol 1/17/69 DeMotto, Debra 1/17/69 Jones, Beatrice 1/17/69 Ebert, Mary 1/31/69 Garnhardt, Judith 2/7/69 Hogrewe, Beverly 2/7/69 Hogrewe, Valerie 2/14/69 Jawny, Louise 3/7/69 Sickels, Norma 3/14/69 Irwin, Josephine 3/14/69 Lancaste, Bruce 3/28/69 Seeley, William 3/28/69 Seeley, Janice 4/4/69 McGee, Joan 4/4/69 Simmons, Barbara 4/25/69 Anderson, Roy 4/25/69 Cunningham, John 4/25/69 Jurgens, Adeline 4/25/69 Roberts, Mary 4/25/69 Gliniecki, Carolyn Brown, Georgia Smith, Louise a/ Minimum; as prior weeks' timecards are not in evidence, it is possible in some cases that the consecutive days absent may be more than shown on the record. b/ Timecard not in evidence; record reveals no other details. c/ Based on Stamiti's testimony. APPENDIX B Comparative Attenuance Records January 1 through April 23, 1969 GLINIECKI ALDERSON NELSON ICE (Group Leader ) ( Group Leader ) (Group Leader)(Rank-and-file) (Rank-and-file) full-time part-time after 1//69f/ Payweek Hours Hours Bonus Hours Bonus Hours Bonus Hours Hours ending worked absent awarded absent awarded absent awarded worked absent 1/3/69 0 X 0 X 2 32 8 1/10/69 0 X 1.5 12 18 12 1/17/69 64.0a/ 0 X 8 8 23.5 6.5 1/24/69 30.3 14.5 6.5 2.5 23.5 6.5 1/31/69 48.3 0 X 0 X 0 X 24 6 2/7/69 52.8a/ 0 X 0 X 3.5 X 15.5 14.5 2/14/69 27.5 15.5b/ 0 X 4 21 9 2/21/69 47.5 0 X 8 0 24 6 2/28/69 48 0 c/ 0 X 3.5 22 8g/ 3/7/69 58.8a/ 0 X 3.5 0 X 30 0 3/14/69 0 X Od/ 8 30.5 6 3/21/69 8 Xc/ 0 X 4 12 3/28/69 0 X 6.25 0 X 0 Oh/ 4/4/69 31.3 16 0 X Oe/ X Oi/ 4/11/69 48 0 X 8 1.5 18 6j/ 4/18/69 47.5 0 X 8 0 X 32.5 0 4/25/69 (Partial) 5.5 16 13 0 Total hours 509.5 70 49.75 49 327.5 100.5 hrs. per wk. 44.3 24.3 Total days 8 4d/ 1 or 2 3 17 Total weeks 12 7 12 6 a/ Includes hours worked on Saturday. b/ Weekday time lost totaled 20.25 hours, but 4.75 hours were worked on Saturday. c/ Bonus earned w.e . 2/28/69 but not awarded; no bonus earned w.e. 3/21 /69 but nevertheless awarded, perhaps to offset w.e. 2/28/69. d/ Excluding 2 days during w.e . 3/14/69 for which her timecard is marked "quit." e/ Credited for a day on which she did not punch in. f/ Part-time employees are ineligible for the attendance bonus. Weekday time lost totaled 12 hours, but 4 hours were worked on Saturday. h/ Excused absence for entire week. ii Excused absence all day April 4. j/ The evening shift was shut down this week, shortening Roberts' work hours.