G. W. Murphy Industries, Inc.

996 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL G, W. Murphy Industries, Inc., Portable Electric Tools Division and Local 279, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Case 38-CA-766 June 24, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , AND JENKINS On March 11, 1970, Trial Examiner Alvin Lieberman issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac- tices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief. General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that Respondent, G. W. Murphy Industries, Inc., Portable Electric Tools Division, Warrens- burg, Illinois, its officers, agents , successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ALVIN LIEBERMAN, Trial Examiner: The trial in this proceeding, with all parties except the charging party represented, was held before me in Decatur, 183 NLRB No. 97 LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Illinois, on December 9 and 10, 1969,1 upon the General Counsel's complaint, dated October 212 and respondent's answer.3 The principal issue raised by the pleadings and litigated at the trial was whether respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein called the Act), by disciplining two employees, John Cronin and Richard Hopp.' Upon the entire record,5 upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, and upon careful consideration of the arguments made and the briefs submitted by the General Counsel and respondent '6 I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT' I. JURISDICTION Respondent, a Texas corporation, is engaged at Warrensburg, Illinois, in the manufacture of elec- tric garden tools. During the year ending on Oc- tober 21, a representative period, respondent sold and shipped to customers located outside the State of Illinois tools valued at more than $50,000 which were manufactured at its Warrensburg plant. Ac- cordingly, I find that respondent is engaged in com- merce within the meaning of the Act and that the assertion of jurisdiction over this matter by the Na- tional Labor Relations Board (herein called the Board) is warranted. Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81, 85. I All dates subsequently mentioned without stating a year fall within 1969 3 The complaint was issued on a charge filed on September 18 by Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Hel- pers of America , Local Union No 279 3 During the trial the pleadings were amended in several respects Thus, respecting the complaint, paragraph 4 (a) was revised to reflect the correct spelling of two names, Raymond W Frederick in place of Raymond W Frederickson and Joe Cavato for Joe Corvota, and the following para- graph , numbered 4(b), was added "On September 4 and 5, 1969, Joseph D Cody occupied the position of foreman of the Die Cast Department at Respondent's Warrensburg, Illinois, plant and acted as an agent for Respondent, acting on its behalf, and was a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(1 1) of the Act " The allegations of this paragraph of the com- plaint were orally admitted by respondent In addition, respondent amended its answer to add to the third subparagraph of paragraph 5 after the word "job" the phrase "and was later discharged by the company " ' Although not raised by the pleadings , but nevertheless contested at great length at the trial and in the briefs of the parties, was the question of whether Richard Hopp and Paul Hashman were, during certain periods, su- pervisors or rank-and-file employees As will be more fully developed below, a decision on this question is unnecessary to the ultimate disposition of the main issue in this case 5 The General Counsel 's motion to correct the stenographic uanscnpt of this proceeding to show that the expression "9 30 break" appearing on line I of page 112 should be "5 30 break " will be, and the same hereby is, granted Furthermore, issued simultaneously herewith is an additional order correcting obvious inadvertent errors in the transcript 6 Although all the arguments of the General Counsel and respondent in support of their respective positions, whether appearing in their briefs or made orally during the trial, may not be discussed in this Decision , each has been weighed and studied r Respondent 's motion to dismiss the complaint made at the close of the trial, upon which decision was reserved , is disposed of in accordance with the findings and conclusions set forth in this Decision G. W. MURPHY INDUSTRIES, INC. II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Introduction Briefly, this case concerns itself with respon- dent's discharge of one employee, John Cronin,8 and its issuance of a written reprimand to Richard Hopp, another employee. This was done, the General Counsel asserts, because Cronin and Hopp left their jobs in protest against uncomfortable working conditions, excessive heat and smoke, in the diecasting department in which both worked. Contending that the conduct of Cronin and Hopp was protected by Section 7 of the Act, the General Counsel urges that the reprisals taken against them contravened Section 8(a)(1).9 Respondent's position is that Cronin was discharged and Hopp reprimanded because they left their jobs without obtaining permission to do so from a supervisor, in violation of plant rules; that conditions in the diecasting department were not such as would warrant the cessation of work by Cronin and Hopp; that Cronin and Hopp did not engage in concerted activities within the meaning of, or protected by, Section 7 of the Act; and, finally, that if Cronin and Hopp did engage in such activity, it had no knowledge that they had done so. Accordingly, respondent argues that by disciplining Cronin and Hopp it did not violate Section 8(a)(1). B. Preliminary Findings10 1. Respondent's rules Employees, upon starting to work for respondent, receive a copy of a handbook,tt which contains plant rules and regulations promulgated by respon- dent. Paragraph I, k,12 of these rules provides as fol- lows: I. Violation of the Rules and Regulations listed in this section constitute grounds for discharge for first offense. k. Leaving the plant before the shift ends without approval of the foreman. 2. Work shifts in the diecasting room During September respondent operated two shifts in the diecasting department. People on the ' Although respondent originally took the position that Cronin resigned, I construe respondent's amendment of its answer as an admission that Cronin was discharged Notwithstanding this admission in respondent's answer , on consideration of the record as a whole it is not only clear that Cronin did not quit his job, but also that his employment was involuntarily terminated by respondent This Section provides Sec 8 ( a) It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer- (I ) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7, Section 7, insofar as relevant , states Sec 7 . Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations , to bargain collectively through 997 day shift, also known as the first shift, worked from 7 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. At all material times Joseph Cody was foreman of this shift and a supervisor, as admitted by respondent. The hours of the second, or night, shift were from 3:30 p.m. until midnight. Employees on this shift took three breaks during the course of their work turn. A 10-minute rest break was taken at 5:30 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. A half hour lunch break was taken at 7:30 p.m. 3. Conditions in the diecasting department The diecasting department, also known as the diecasting room, is located in the northwest corner of respondent's building. In its north wall there is a large rollup door. Three similar doors, somewhat smaller, are in the west wall. These four doors lead to the outside of the building. Immediately east of the diecasting department is respondent's inspection department. Separating the two is a wall in which there are several doors and chutes through which finished castings are passed. In the center of the diecasting room, running from north to south, are six diecasting machines, each equipped with a melting pot. In the ceiling above the machines are three large exhaust fans whose function is to draw heat and smoke out of the room and to bring in air through ducts located in the room's west wall. In addition, there is a floor fan adjacent to each machine to blow smoke away from its operator. Heat and smoke are always present in diecasting rooms. This condition is created by the nature of the work performed in such places. Described in briefest outline, castings are produced from molten metal which is poured into a die set in a machine. Upon the activation of the machine the molten metal in the die becomes a casting by solidifying and assuming the shape of the die, which is actually a mold. During the course of this operation an oily substance is sprayed on the die and grease is ap- plied to the machine. The heat in diecasting rooms is generated by the high temperature required to maintain the liquidity of the metal in the melting pots. The smoke is caused by the oil and grease applied respectively to the dies and machines and by impurities in the metal placed in the melting pots. representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other con- certed activities for the purpose, of collective bargaining or other mu- tual aid or protection `.The purpose of these findings is to furnish a frame of reference within which to consider the facts relating to respondent 's alleged unfair labor practices and the conclusions to which they may give rise To the extent that the contentions of the parties relate specifically to the findings made here they will be treated here , although they may again be considered in other contexts " This document, entitled "Employees Handbook," is in evidence as G C Exh 2A `GC Exh 2A, pp 52,54 998 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4. The closing of the doors Until September 3 the outside doors in the diecasting room13 were completely open except in cold or rainy weather. On those occasions they were lowered to a foot or two off the ground. The open doors, however, brought about several undesirable conditions.. Thus, in August respon- dent experienced some pilferage and it was be- lieved that the things which had been stolen were removed from the plant through the outside doors in the diecasting department. Also, Joe Cavato, the plant superintendent, had received complaints that wind coming through the open outside doors in the diecasting department blew heat from that room into the inspection department through the chutes in the wall which separated the two departments. Finally, it was believed that the open doors inter- fered with the air conditioning of the plant. For these reasons Cavato decided to have the four outside doors in the diecasting room closed and locked. This was done during the morning of September 4. As will be set forth below, the closing of the doors caused a substantial amount of unrest among employees in the diecasting department. C. Facts Concerning Respondent's Alleged Unfair Labor Practices 1. The events of September 4 Following the closing of the doors in the diecast- ing room the heat and smoke, in the opinion of Joseph Cody, the foreman there, seemed to in- crease. At or about 11 a.m. on September 4 the diecasting department employees on the first shift left their machines and, as Cody testified, "said they refused to work until the doors were opened." After informing Joe Cavato, the plant superinten- dent, of the work stoppage and that employees were complaining about the heat and smoke, Cody told the employees, as he further related, that Cavato "said they could either go back to work or punch their cards and go home. Upon hearing this the employees returned to work. John Cronin and Richard Hopp, who the com- plaint alleges were disciplined by respondent in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, worked on the second shift in the diecasting department. As both lived in the same neighborhood they customarily drove to work together. On September 4 Cronin and Hopp arrived at the i, It will be remembered that there were four such doors, one in the north wall and three in the west wall " Dunng the first week of September Eulis Gray, the foreman of the second shift in the diecasting department and, as the parties stipulated, a supervisor, was on vacation Dunng Gray 's absence Hashman performed several of his functions and was considered by the employees to be the act- ing foreman " This finding is based upon , and the quotation appeanng in the text is taken from, Vincent's testimony Stanford denied talking to Vincent about plant shortly before the start of their shift. They noticed that the doors were shut and learned about the earlier work stoppage by the employees on the first shift. After starting to work Cronin, Hopp, and Paul Hashman," who also worked on the second shift in the diecasting department, talked among themselves about the closed doors and asked Cody, the first-shift foreman, why they had been shut. Cody, however, could give them no reason. During the early part of their shift and before their first break, Cronin and Hopp continued to talk about the closed doors. They also talked about the accumulation of the heat and smoke in the diecasting room, which they thought was excessive and caused by the shutting of the doors. During this period Cronin and Hopp told Hashman, as he stated, that "they wasn t going to work in them conditions, the smoke and heat. ' The discussion about the heat, the smoke, and the closed doors, which had been carried on all that afternoon by Cronin and Hopp, came to a head, ap- parently, at the first rest break. At this time, as Cronin testified, they told Hashman, in the presence of Don Vincent, a leadman in the plant's machine shop, "that [they] was going to go home at lunch break." At or about 7 o'clock that night James Stanford, the assistant plant superintendent, came into the machine shop . While he was there Vincent in- formed him "that [Cronin and Hopp] were going home at 7:30 [because, they said,] it was too hot, too smokey out there. "15 At or about 7:15 p.m. on September 4 Cronin and Hopp stopped work. After cleaning up and changing into street clothes they punched their timecards and left the plant at or about 7:30 p.m. Stanford, who was stan ding near the timeclock, saw them leave. 2. The events of September 5 On their way to work on September 5 Cronin and Hopp decided to return home if the outside doors had not been opened. Upon entering the plant, the doors still being shut, Cronin did not punch his timecard. Instead, Cronin announced in the presence of Cody, the first-shift diecasting depart- ment foreman, as Hopp related, that "he wasn't going to work that night, he was going to go back home because it was too hot in there with the doors shut, and smokey." Having said this, Cronin de- parted. He did not work that day. Cronin and Hopp on the night in question I do not credit this denial As between the two witnesses, I was more favorably impressed with Vincent's demeanor than I was with Stanford 's Furthermore, and demeanor aside, in assessing Vincent's testimony in this respect I have taken into account the factor that he was giving evidence adverse to respondent , although in respondent's employ at the time of the trial , and, therefore, was in a sense testifying under peel of reprisal See Georgia Rug Miii, 131 NLRB 1304, 1305, modified on other grounds 308 F 2d 89 (C A 5) G. W. MURPHY INDUSTRIES, INC. 999 Hopp, however, did not follow suit. Although he and Cronin had agreed to return home together if the doors were shut on September 5, as they had been on September 4, Hopp was persuaded by a fellow employee not to do so. Accordingly, he remained and worked. At or about 5 p.m. on September 5 Stanford, the assistant plant superintendent, was sent to summon Cronin and Hopp to a meeting which had been con- vened earlier by respondent's officials to determine why they left the plant on September 4. Cronin, however, as Stanford was informed by Cody, the first-shift foreman, was no longer on the premises. Present at the meeting, when it was joined by Hopp and Stanford, were, among others, Raymond Frederick, Martha Clifford, and Cavato, respective- ly, respondent's personnel director, personnel manager, and plant superintendent. Upon being questioned as to the reason why he and Cronin walked out at lunchtime the previous day, Hopp, as Frederick testified, replied that they had done so "together" because "it was too hot and smokey." At some point during the afternoon of September 5, although exactly when is not clear from the evidence, it was decided by respondent's officials in attendance at the meeting to discharge Cronin and to give Hopp a written reprimand. Accgrdingly, Frederick prepared a letter to Cronin16 advising him "that [he was] no longer in [respondent's] em- ploy [and that his] termination [was] the result of [his] misconduct in walking off the job yesterday and today." Although this letter was mailed to Cronin on September 5, he never received it. 3. The events of September 8 Not having received respondent 's letter , Cronin came to work as usual on September 8.17 Upon his arrival he was informed that he had been discharged. On the same day a "Record of Warning " signed by Stanford, the assistant plant manager, was served on Hopp. This document18 recited that the "Nature of Offense" which prompted its issuance occurred on September 4 at 7:30 p.m. and con- sisted Of "UNAUTHORIZED CHANGING OF WORK CLOTHES TO STREET CLOTHES AND CLEANING OF MACHINE. GIVING UNSATISFACTORY INFORMATION IN REGARD TO THE REAL REASON FOR WANTING TO LEAVE WORK EARLY ." The document further recited that a " REPITITION [ SIC] OF EITHER OF THESE OFFENSES WILL LEAD TO MORE SERIOUS DISIPLINARY [SIC] MEASURES." D. Contentions and Concluding Findings Concerning Respondent's Alleged Unfair Labor Practices As noted, the General Counsel contends that the discipline meted out by respondent to Cronin and Hopp violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act because it interfered with rights guaranteed to them in Sec- tion 7. Respondent, on the other hand, asserts, on brief, that its disciplinary action "was not taken as the result of any protected concerted activities of the two employees involved under the Act. "19 The facts of this case, as I have found them, so closely parallel the facts in N.L.R.B. v. Washington Aluminum Company, 370 U.S. 9, that the opinion and reasoning of the Court there are dispositive here. In Washington Aluminum several employees who refused to work on a particular day because they thought it was too cold to do so were discharged for this reason. Finding that the work stoppage was concerted20 and protected by Section 7 of the Act, the Court concluded that the discharges were violative of Section 8(a)(1). In arriving at its conclusion the Court, in Washington Aluminum, considered and rejected ar- guments similar to those respondent makes in addi- tion to its contention that the activity of Cronin and Hopp was not concerted or protected by Section 7. Thus, insofar as respondent maintains that it was justified in disciplining Cronin and Hopp because they left their work without supervisory approval as required by its plant rule, the Court had this to say:21 Nor can we accept the company's conten- tion that because it admittedly had an established plant rule which forbade employees to leave their work without permission of the foreman, there was justifiable "cause" for discharging these employees, wholly separate and apart from any concerted activities in which they engaged in protest against the poorly heated plant. Section 10(c) of the Act does authorize an employer to discharge em- ployees for "cause" and our cases have long recognized this right on the part of an em- ployer. But this, of course, cannot mean that an employer is at liberty to punish a man by discharging him for engaging in concerted ac- tivities which § 7 of the Act protects. And the plant rule in question here purports to permit the company to do just that for it would prohibit even the most plainly protected kinds of concerted work stoppages until and unless 'B G C Exh 2B September 5, the day on which respondent 's letter to Cronin was mailed, fell on a Friday September 8, a Monday , was the next regular workday G C Exh 2C 1e The bases for respondent's position in this regard have already been set forth in the introductory portion of this Decision and will be discussed more fully below 2° The fact that seven employees were involved in Washington Aluminum whereas only two are involved here does not take the action of the two out of the area of concerted activity "Two [employees ] as well as a dozen or a thousand can act in concert for their mutual aid and protection " Tex- Togs, Inc, 112 NLRB 968, 973, enfd 231 F 2d 310 (C A 5) 21 370 U S 9, 16-17 1000 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the permission of the company's foreman was obtained. Concerning respondent's contention that condi- tions in the diecasting room did not warrant the cessation of work by Cronin and Hopp, the Court stated" that "the reasonableness of workers' deci- sions to engage in concerted activity is irrelevant to the determination" of whether those activities are protected by the Act. In the same vein , the Court held in an earlier case, N.L.R.B. v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co., 304 U.S. 333, 344, that the "wisdom or unwisdom of [employees], their justification or lack of it" has no bearing on the question of whether they are exercising rights guaranteed in Section 7. Respondent's final argument, that it had no knowledge that Cronin and Hopp were engaged in activities protected by the Act, is equally without merit.23 As the Board did in Walls Manufacturing Company, Inc., 137 NLRB 1317, 1318, 1, too, will assume, without deciding, that a showing of knowledge such as respondent asserts it did not have is a necessary factor in a case of this type be- fore it can be said that an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act has been committed. However, I do not agree with respondent's claim that it lacked such knowledge. Thus, as early as the morning of September 4 Joseph Cody, the first-shift foreman in the diecast- ing department, reported to Joe Cavato, the plant superintendent, that employees were complaining about the heat and smoke in the department and that they had stopped work for that reason. At or about 7 p.m. on September 4, as I have found, Don Vincent, a leadman in respondent's employ, told James Stanford, the assistant plant superintendent, that Cronin and Hopp were going home at 7:30 p.m. because they felt that it was too hot and smokey in the diecasting room. When Cronin and Hopp actually left about a half hour later because they thought it was too uncomfortable to continue working, they were in their street clothes and Stan- ford saw them leave the plant. On September 5, at or about 2:45 p.m. Cody heard Cronin say that it was too hot and smoke and that he was going home for this reason. 4 Finally, at his meeting with respondent's officials during the late afternoon of September 5, Hopp told them in plain words, as Raymond Frederick, respondent's personnel director, testified, that he 22370US 9,16 23 In support of this position respondent cited Walls Manufacturing Com- pany, Inc , 128 NLRB 487, in which the Board stated that "in order to sustain a finding of an 8(a )( 1) violation based on discharge , it is necessary to establish that at the time of discharge the employer had knowledge of the concerted nature of the activity for which the employee was discharged " Assuming, but not deciding, that this was a correct statement of the law, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, on review, remanded the case to the Board to reconsider its applicability In- ternational Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO v N L R B, 299 F 2d 114, 116-117 Accepting the remand, the Board reexamined the evidence This time, however, as put by the Board, it was, as had the Court and Cronin had walked out "together" the day be- fore because "it was too hot and smokey." Accordingly, assuming that respondent's knowledge of the concerted protected activity on the part of Cronin and Hopp is an element which must be shown before it can be held that respon- dent violated 8(a)(1) by disciplining them for such activity, I find that requirement to be amply satisfied. I conclude, therefore, that by discharging Cronin and issuing a formal reprimand to Hopp respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of respondent set forth in section II, above, occurring in connection with its opera- tions described in section I, above, have a close, in- timate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. IV. THE REMEDY Having found that respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, my Recommended Order will direct respondent to cease and desist therefrom and to take such affirmative action, including the ex- pungement from its records of the reprimand issued to Hopp, as will effectuate the policies of the Act. Any backpay found to be due to Cronin shall be computed in accordance with the formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and shall include interest in the amount and manner provided for in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. An unfair labor practice resulting in a discharge, as in Cronin's situation, is, in my opinion, among the most serious violations contemplated by the Act. Cf. N.L.R.B. v. United Mineral & Chemical Corporation, 391 F.2d 829, 838 (C.A. 2). For this reason broad cease-and-desist provisions will be in- cluded in my Recommended Order. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: of Appeals, " assuming, but [not] passing on , the need for showing knowledge " Walls Manufacturing Company, Inc, 137 NLRB 1317, 1318, enfd 321 F 2d 753 (C A D C ), cert denied 375 U S 923 The position thus taken by the Board on this point has been reasserted by it in sub- sequent cases See, e g , Westmont Tractor Company, 173 NLRB 1188, Electromec Design and Development Company, Inc, 168 NLRB 763, enfd 409 F 2d 631 (C A 9), Hoover Design Corporation, 167 NLRB 461, enfd in this respect 402 F 2d 987 (C A 6), and Halsey W Taylor Company, 145 NLRB 425, 426, enfd 342 F 2d 406 (C A 6) 24 Under well-settled principles the knowledge thus acquired by Cody, whose supervisory status at the time is not questioned, is attributable to respondent G. W. MURPHY INDUSTRIES, INC. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer within the mean- ing of Section, 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) of the Act. 2. By discharging John Cronin and by issuing a formal reprimand to Richard Hopp because they engaged in concerted activities protected by, and guaranteed in, Section 7 of the Act, respondent has engaged, and is engaging, in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 3. The unfair labor practices engaged in by respondent, as set forth in Conclusion of Law 2, above, affect commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, I hereby issue the following: RECOMMENDED ORDER G. W. Murphy Industries, Inc., Portable Electric Tools Division, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging, reprimanding, warning, taking any other disciplinary action against, or in any manner affecting adversely the hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employ- ment of, employees for engaging in any activity protected by, or guaranteed in, Section 7 of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended. (b) Discouraging employees from engaging in concerted activities within the protection of, or guaranteed by, Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by discharging, repri- manding , warning, taking any other disciplinary ac- tion against , or in any manner affecting adversely the hire or tenure or any term or condition of em- ployment of, employees for engaging in such activi- ty. (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro- tection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, or to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment in conformity with Sec- tion 8(a)(3) of said Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which, it is found, will effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended: (a) Revoke, delete, and physically expunge from its records the Record of Warning issued to Richard Hopp on September 8, 1969, and notify Richard Hopp, in writing, that this has been done. 1001 (b) Offer to John Cronin immediate and full reinstatement to his former, or substantially equivalent, position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole, in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy," for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination practiced against him. (c) Notify John Cronin if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order. (e) Post at its premises copies of the attached notice marked "Aendix. "25 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Officer-in-Charge of Subregion 38 of the National Labor Relations Board, after being duly signed by respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by respon- dent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (f) Notify said Officer-in-Charge, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.26 7S 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 " 16 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Officer-in-Charge, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a trial in which all parties had the opportunity to present their evidence, it has been found that we 1002 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD violated the law and we have been ordered to post this notice and to keep the promises that we make in this notice. WE WILL NOT fire , lay off, suspend, repri- mand, issue a warning to any employee, or take any other disciplinary or unfavorable ac- tion against any employee because he together with any other employee leaves his work or takes any other lawful action to protest any working condition or to get better working conditions. Because it has been found that we fired John Cronin because he and Richard Hopp left work in protest against, and because of, the closed outside doors in the diecasting room WE WILL immediately offer to put John Cronin back to work at his old job or to a job just like his old job, and WE WILL pay John Cronin for any wages he lost because we fired him. Because it has been found that we gave a written warning to Richard Hopp because he and John Cronin left work in protest against, and because of, the closed outside doors in the diecasting room WE WILL cancel the written warning we gave to Richard Hopp and physi- cally remove it from our records , and WE WILL notify Richard Hopp , in writing, that we can- celed the written warning we gave him and removed it from our records. WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce you in the exercise of any rights guaranteed you by the National Labor Relations Act. In this connection , we will not penalize you in any way for engaging in any lawful action to protest against any working condition, or to get better working conditions. G. W. MURPHY INDUSTRIES, INC., PORTABLE ELECTRIC TOOLS DIVISION (Employer) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) We will notify immediately the above-named in- dividual, 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. 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, 10th Floor, Savings Center Tower, 411 Hamilton Boulevard , Peoria , Illinois 61602, Telephone 309-673-9283.