Halliburton Services

FREIGHTMASTER 3 Freightmaster, a Division of Halliburton Services and International Union, United Automobile, Aero- space and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW. Case 16-CA-3664 October 15, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS On May 21, 1970, Trial Examiner David E. Davis issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Exam- iner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices and recom- mended dismissal as to them. Thereafter, the Charg- ing Party filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, and the Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision, a supporting brief, and a brief in answer to the Charging Party's exceptions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in 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 this case and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings,' conclusions,2 and recom- mendations. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommend- ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Respondent, Freightmaster, a Division of Halli- burton Services, Fort Worth, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as modified below.3 1968, and in one instance referred to supervisor Revers where it is apparent from the context that the reference was to employee Stafford . The Decision is hereby corrected in these respects. 2 In the absence of exceptions thereto we adopt pro forma the Trial Examiner's conclusion that Respondent did not violate the Act by the circulation and promulgation of a no-solicitation rule. 3 Paragraph 2(a) of the Recommended Order is hereby amended by deleting the language including and preceding the words "equivalent position" and substituting therefor : "Offer to Juan Nieto, George Stafford, and W. P. Williams immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions...." TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE DAVID E. DAVIS, Trial Examiner: This case, heard in Fort Worth, Texas, on 5 days between February 9 and 13, 1970, pursuant to a charge filed on July 3, 1969,1 amended on July 10, September 2, and October 17, and a complaint issued on October 17, placed in issue whether Freightmas- ter, a division of Halliburton Services , referred to herein as Respondent, engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein call the Act, by the discharge of four named employees and by certain alleged interference with, restraint, and coercion of its employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. Respondent, in its answer filed on October 30, admitted certain allegations of the complaint but denied that it had engaged in any violations of the Act. Upon the entire record, my observation of the witnesses, and careful consideration of the briefs filed by Respondent and General Counsel, I make the following: 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY AND THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent, a division of Halliburton Services, a Delaware corporation, operates a plant in Fort Worth, Texas, where it manufactures and sells hydraulic cushions and coupling devices for railroad cars. It annually ships products valued in excess of $50,000 to points outside the State of Texas. It is admitted and I find that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. It is also admitted and I find that the Charging Party herein, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Work- ers of America, UAW, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Preliminary Statement It is admitted and I find that the following named persons were supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act at all times material herein: I These findings are based , in part, on credibility determinations of the Trial Examiner to which the Respondent has excepted . After careful review of the record, we conclude that these credibility findings are not contrary to the clear preponderance of all relevant evidence . Accordingly, we find no basis for disturbing these findings . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3). We note that the Trial Examiner's Decision, apparently inadvertently, referred to an earlier election as being held in April 1969, instead of April John Carpenter Franklin Marshall Ben Holland Eugene Bennett Richard Nieswiadomy Billy Joe Bevers Harold Hayner W. C. Wright I Hereafter, all dates refer to the year 1969, unless otherwise specified. 186 NLRB No. 3 4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The evidence shows that the Union had lost an election at Respondent's plant in April 1969, but continued organizing efforts thereafter. It intensified its organizational efforts commencing about February 15 and in March filed another representation petition which resulted in an election on May 15. In this election, the Union achieved a majority and was certified on May 23. Bargaining was entered into shortly thereafter and was in process at the time of the instant hearing in February 1970. B. 8(a)(1) Interference, Restraint, and Coercion On May 16, a notice, identified as a bulletin, was put on the bulletin board.2 It reads as follows: As indicated by Bill Wright's notice last night, the results of the election were 163 votes for the union, 133 votes for the company, with 17 challenged votes. Although the UAW received a majority of the votes cast, the union members are not running this company, and every employee will follow the rules and policies established by the company. Regardless of what you might have been told, you do not have to join the union to work for FreightMaster. It is against the law in Texas to make union membership a condition of employment. We will protect your right to join or not to join as you desire. Employees are not allowed to leave their work stations during working hours to solicit union member- ship. We will not allow any threats, pressure tactics, or coercion in attempts to get employees to join the union. Report any such attempts to your supervisor. Employees who violate these rules will be subject to discharge. These rules will be enforced by all supervisors T W Painter Prentice Stroud credibly testified that he was presently employed by Respondent as a general machinist. Stroud testified that he was employed for about 8 years at the time of the hearing and was a leadman supervisor for one year from March 1968 to March 1969 when he requested to be relieved of his supervisory duties and returned to the general machinist classification. For 2 months preceding the May 15 election, Stroud was active in the Union's organizational campaign by securing signed membership cards from fellow employees. On May 26, the Union notified Respondent that Stroud was one of the employees selected to serve on the Union's negotiating and bargaining committee.3 The others so named were J. C. Kemp, Gwendolyn Greer, James Calhoun, Mike Solis, and Don Lewis. Within a week after the receipt of this notification,4 Stroud placed it about June 1, Richard Nieswiadomy, Stroud's supervisor, went to Stroud's machine and told Stroud that he was not to wander around the plant, to stay with the job, and not to talk to anyone. Nieswiadomy then proceeded to the other employees in the department and told them to stay away from Stroud. Stroud also testified that I or 2 days after the election, Nieswiadomy told the department that "the Company had put an updated policy on the board"; that the employees were not to get anything from the vending machines except on breaks and that these rules were going to be enforced; that shortly after the election Nieswiadomy told the employees in Stroud's department that if anyone was caught handing out membership cards on company time that they would be terminated, that thereafter Stroud saw Supervisor Gene Bennett trying to sell an automobile on company time; that Supervisor Harold Comer was selling a line of products called "Amway"; that Stroud purchased one such item, shoe polish, on company time right after the election; that football and baseball pools were conducted on company time with Supervisors Ed Taylor and James Creacy collecting money for such pools. Mike Solis, a machinist and one of the employees designated as a member of the negotiating committee in General Counsel's Exhibit 2, testified that on May 13 he was wearing three union buttons, two similar to General Counsel's Exhibit 3 and one which identified him as a member of the union organizing committee; that he walked up to the time rack to fill out his timecard; that his supervisor, Ben Holland, was standing there talking to two other employees; that Holland stepped up to Solis and asked Solis why he was wearing "those union buttons"; that Solis replied that they were trying to get a union organized; that Holland said, "Do you know that by wearing those buttons it would hurt you more than it would help you in the long run with the Company?"; that on the day following the election, he needed a certain tool and went over to C. A. Tackett, who was working near him; that he asked Tackett if he had tin snips and Tackett replied that he didn't; that Solis then asked Tackett if he could borrow a big hammer from him; that supervisor Nieswiadomy at that point came by and asked Solis what he was doing; that Solis replied he was asking Tackett for a hammer; that Nieswiadomy replied that he should not go to Tackett' s area to talk to him because Gene Bennett, the shop foreman, was watching him closely and that it would get Tackett in trouble; that about 20 minutes later Solis was smoking a cigar at his machine when Gary Wright from production control asked Solis if he needed any parts; that when Solis replied that he did not need any at that moment but possibly would in a few hours that Wright then suggested that Solis get another pallet when he had time and put it under the one that was there, that Holland came over and asked Solis if he was celebrating by smoking a cigar, that Solis grinned and replied, "Well, it's my cigar and my money, and I guess I can smoke as long as I work." Holland then said, "Yeah, well, I just came to tell you that from now on there's changes going to be made around here. I don't want you to be talking to any other employees that come by here." Solis further testified that, prior to the election, talk was permitted provided the employees did not visit a long time and that borrowing a tool was also permitted; that smoking at the machines was likewise permitted and that before the election no supervisor had ever spoken to him about talking 2 Resp Exh 1 3 See G C Exh 2 4 There was no stipulation or evidence as to when G C Exh 2 was received However, it was dated May 26 and it is reasonable to infer that it was received in the ordinary course of mail within a day or two thereafter FREIGHTMASTER 5 to other employees; that about 3 weeks after the election, Adolpho Alemany, a rank-and-file employee, solicited other employees during worktime to purchase hats; that, about a week after the election, Supervisor Holland brought a slip of paper with rules and told Solis to sign it; that Solis signed and returned the paper to Holland; that one of the rules prohibited employees from patronizing the vending machines during working time, only on breaks and lunch; that the employees in Solis' department all wore buttons and obeyed the rule; that he saw other employees (Timmie Rider, Jim Lasater, Jr., John English, and Calvin Bennett) patronize the vending machines during worktime; that Bennett was the son of Gene Bennett, the shop foreman; that Lasater was the son of the shop superintend- ent and neither of the sons nor English wore union buttons or attended union meetings; that supervisors saw them at the vending machines and nothing was said to them; that those named patronized the machines daily and the rule was not enforced as against them; that on May 16, Holland told him that he, Solis, could not have union membership cards signed on company time but that an inspector, Gene Gibson, was permitted to solicit signatures on company time to a petition requesting that the hours of a work shift be changed. On cross-examination, Solis testified that prior to the time Holland showed him the rules he had gone to the vending machines for cokes and cigarettes during working time; that, after the rules were called to the attention of the men in his department, Solis saw no union man go to the vending machines and therefore had not seen or heard a supervisor reprimand anyone; that he also saw some forklift drivers from the warehouse patronizing the vending machines, that Harold Comer, a supervisor, was around the vending machine when the persons named by Solis were buying items from the machines; that Alemany did not wear a union button; that the vending machines were located in an area where approximately 75 employees and four supervisors were stationed; that the shop foreman's office was about 15 feet from the location of the vending machines; that Solis when operating his machine was facing the vending machines from a distance of about 25 feet. W. P. Williams, in the employ of Respondent from March 1965, until he was terminated on June 27, testified that he was a radial drill press operator for about 3 months at the time of his discharge; that he was active in the union campaign by displaying union stickers on his toolbox, wearing a union pin on his cap, and getting union authorization cards signed by other employees; that, about the middle of April, Supervisor Holland was at Williams' machine while Williams was signing a receipt for his paycheck; that Holland reached over and pulled the union stickers off his toolbox, saying, "This is my tool box and I don't want any UAW sticker on it." Williams replied that he had purchased and paid Holland for the tool box and 5 G. C. Exh. 4. 6 Employees' parking area was located on the roof of the plant. I General Counsel conceded that this incident was not alleged in the complaint as an unfair labor practice and was merely introduced to show Respondent's knowledge of Williams' union status and as background. The evidence was received on that basis. 8 The evidence shows that about half of the cards were union that it was now his; that about 3 or 4 weeks later, Gene Bennett, the shop foreman, asked Williams to come into his office because Williams was about 5 minutes late getting to work; that Williams explained his tardiness by telling Bennett that traffic had been delayed because of an accident; that Bennett asked, "Are you sure you wasn't up on the roof 6 getting cards signed?" Williams replied that this was not so and if he had been it would be on his own time. Williams also testified to an incident occurring about a month before his termination and after the Board conducted an election. This incident concerned a visit by Williams to the toolroom to replace a tool which had been sharpened improperly. On the way to the toolroom, Williams met Holland and Bennett. Williams said to Bennett "Mr. Bennett, this tool is cut wrong. It is sharpened wrong and it is cutting a hole too large." Holland, thereupon, interposed: "Well, this is the way we sharpen them for union workers." Bennett interceded and said, "Wait just a minute, Ben (Holland). You can't do this." Bennett then took Holland aside for further conversation.7 George S. Stafford, a machinist employed by Respondent from January to May 27 when he was terminated, testified that he was active in the union organizing campaign and secured signatures of fellow employees to 40-50 union cards; 8 that he attended four or five union meetings and wore a union sticker9 on the back of his shirt; that he wore several union buttons 10 and the union sticker for about 2 months prior to the election; that a day or two prior to the election he wore a T-shirt which was imprinted with the phrase: "Vote UAW"; that the day after the Union won the election he solicited John Carpenter, his leadman, by giving him an application for union membership; 11 that about 3 months before the election Supervisor Bill Bevers asked him what he thought about the Union; that after Stafford expressed strong approval, Bevers asked, "You sure about this?" Stafford also testified that, about 1 week after the election, Bevers asked him how many cards had been signed; that Stafford said he didn't know; that the Monday following the election Bevers asked him how many attended the meeting held the day before, a Sunday; that Stafford replied a hundred or more; that the night after the election, Supervisor Charlie Williams told him that the rules regarding visits to the vending machines had been changed; that later in the week, Stafford went to the toolroom just before his break for lunch; that when he was returning he purchased a sweet roll from a vending machine next to the toolroom; that he returned to his work station and put the sweet roll into his lunch pail; that he ate the sweet roll during his luncheon break; that after lunch Supervisor Williams told him that James Winchester, the night foreman, wanted to see him in his office. When Stafford arrived in Winchester's office, Winchester asked him, "Hasn't Charlie told you about this rule and regulation?" Stafford admitted that he had been told and Winchester said, "Do you know this could lead up to a termination?" authorization cards secured prior to the election and the other half union membership applications secured after the election. 9 G. C. Exh. 4. 10 G. C. Exh. 3. 11 G. C. Exh. 6. It appears that prior to the election signatures were solicited by union adherents to authorization cards while after the election signatures were solicited for union membership and check-off. 6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Again Stafford said, "Yes" and Winchester said that he was not going to let Stafford go this time but if it happened again Stafford would be terminated. The most far-reaching incident under this heading concerns a statement by supervisor Carpenter to Stafford on the night of the election after the result became known. Stafford testified that Carpenter came over to his machine and ,said that he had overheard that union men would be whittled down one by one, but that if Stafford repeated this statement, Carpenter would call him a liar . Stafford replied, "That could happen." Juan T. Nieto started his employment with Respondent in November 1967, and was terminated on May 27. At the time of his discharge, Nieto was concluding a 30-day trial to qualify for a job as a machine operator of a center mill machine. When the union organizational drive was intensified in February, Nieto attended two meetings and secured signatures to approximately 20 union authorization cards. About 3 weeks before the election, Holland saw Nieto's membership card when it fell out of his pocket while Holland was observing Nieto's work . Holland asked Nieto what it was and Nieto replied that it was his membership card . Nieto further testified that about 3 months prior to the 1969 election , he was near the entrance to the warehouse when he met his supervisor, Frank Marshall; that Nieto remarked to Marshall that when they got the Union the burnisher 12 would be considered a machine. Marshall replied, "I don't know about that." Nieto then told Holland that he was all for the Union. About 3 weeks later, Supervisor Harold Hayner ap- proached Nieto while Nieto was working at the burnisher and asked Nieto to clear the area around the machine. Nieto said he didn't have any place to put the material that was crowding the area . Harold Hayner then asked, "Are you one of these Union men?" Nieto replied "Yes ." Hayner then said "What good will the Union do for you?" Nieto replied "We'll get better benefits." Hayner then said, "All the Union wants is the monthly dues." Contrary to the testimony of W. P. Williams, Holland denied that he had pulled a sticker from Williams' toolbox. Holland also denied that he had remarked to Williams that improperly sharpened tools were sharpened that way for union employees. I do not credit Holland in the above respects as I find him to be unreliable and evasive. On the other hand, W. P. Williams' descriptions of the two incidents involving Holland were detailed in such a manner that the undersigned was impressed with the truth of the accounts. Accordingly, I credit Williams' in the foregoing respects and find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by Holland's conduct in pulling a union sticker from Williams' toolbox . The incident, where Holland told Williams' that improperly sharpened tools were sharpened that way for union members , was not alleged as a violation of the Act. I therefore make no finding in this regard. However, I have considered the incident as background to establish Respondent's knowledge of Williams' union sympathies and Respondent's union animus. Holland, in his testimonial account, stated that he saw no increase in union activity prior to the May 15 election; that he couldn't recall whether supervisors had any meeting before the election saying, "If they had any supervisors' meetings, yes, I went to them." When asked if he went to a meeting close to the election which was addressed by Mr. Painter, Respondent's vice-president, Holland replied, "Well, if Mr. Painter had one, yes, I believe I attended it." Asked if at the meeting Painter mentioned something about the Union, Holland replied "If he mentioned it, you know, I was there." When pressed further, Holland then said he didn't recall Painter mentioning the Union because there had been so many meetings. In response to another question, he stated "Well, it seems like the Union was brought up at just about every meeting, you know, it seemed like." Holland denied that there was a meeting concerning the enforcement of rules or that employees should be kept away from the vending machines and said that it was always company policy that employees should patronize the vending machines on their own time; that he saw various employees at the vending machine including Solis and never reprimanded them. Because of Holland's evasiveness and fleeting memory, I do not credit his testimony with respect to the enforement of the rules against patronizing the vending machines. I credit the testimony of Supervisor Charles Williams that, within a day or two after the success of the union in the election, Painter told supervisors to enforce strictly the rule against employees' patronizing vending machines during worktime and to prevent employees from talking to one another. I also credit Solis' and Stroud's testimony in this regard and find that Supervisor Nieswiadomy attempt- ed to insulate Stroud from contact with other employees because of Stroud's known union activity and sympathies. Nieswiadomy's warning to Stroud and the notice he gave to other employees to stay away from Stroud constituted, under all the circumstances, disparate treatment and uneven enforcement of a rule that was largely tolerated when employees not known to be active union adherents were involved. I find that Nieswiadomy's conduct in these respects violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I conclude that the reprimand administered to Stafford by Foreman Winchester because Stafford patronized the vending machine after the election further constituted disparate treatment of a known union adherent and thus violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. On May 16, immediately after the Union won the election, Respondent issued a bulletin,13 which prohibited employees from leaving their station to solicit union membership during working hours. The notice, itself, issued so soon after the success of the Union in the election, in its entire context, constitutes an unlawful attempt to interfere with, discourage, and coerce union adherence, activity, and membership. The linking up of the various phrases with a rule threatening discharge to employees who leave their stations to solicit union membership while at the same time continuing to tolerate solicitation for purchases of various 12 Nieto was operating a burnisher at the time . The burnisher operation Respondent as qualification for a "machine operator " classification and was the last step in the manufacture of a piston . It rolled the metal together the operator was paid at a lower level. and hardened it. After this operation, the piston was complete and ready to 13 Resp. Exh. 1. be placed into the cylinder. The burnisher operator was not considered by FREIGHTMASTER 7 products and baseball and football pools, clearly establish- es discriminatory purposes. However, as the circulation and promulgation of this rule was not alleged to be an unfair labor practice, I make no specific finding of a violation of the Act in this regard. The credited evidence shows that known union adherents like Solis and Stafford were closely watched by supervisors when near vending machines and when Solis went to borrow a tool from a fellow employee. I credit Solis' testimony that Supervisor Nieswiadomy told Solis that by asking Tackett to lend him a tool, Solis might cause trouble for Tackett as Foreman Bennett was watching him closely. I also credit Solis' testimony, that, on the occasion when Solis was talking to Wright concerning his need for additional parts, Supervisor Holland told him, ". . . from now on there's changes going to be made around here. I don't want you talking to any other employees that come by here." I am convinced that prior to the election a rule against visiting and talking, if it was in existence, was not strictly enforced and that after the election pursuant to instructions to supervisors at a meeting, strict enforcement was required against Union adherents. Accordingly, I find that the enforcement of the rule against purchases from the vending machine during working time was discriminately enforced in violation of Section 8(a)(1). As recited above, Nieswiado- my specially singled out Solis and Stroud, members of the union negotiating committee, and warned them that they should not talk to other employees during worktime. I find this treatment in each case a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I find that Holland unlawfully and coercively interrogat- ed Solis in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when Holland asked why Solis was wearing union buttons on or about May 13 and that Holland's statement that Solis' display of the buttons would hurt rather than help him with the Company was coercive. I credit Nieto's undenied testimony that Supervisor Hayner asked him if he was "one of those Union men," Hayner's subsequent question as to what good the Union would do him and Hayner's comment that all the Union wanted was his dues. I find the entire conversation constituted coercive interrogation in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Stafford testified that on three occasions, he was interrogated by Supervisor Bill Bevers. On the first occasion, Bevers asked Stafford his views of the Union and, when Stafford replied that he thought it would help a man to belong, Bevers asked "Are you sure?" On the second occasion, Bevers asked Stafford how many cards had been signed and on the third occasion, after the election, Bevers asked Stafford how many had attended the union meeting held the previous day: As I credit Stafford, I find that each of these incidents constituted unlawful interrogation in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I credit W. P. Williams' testimony that on the occasion when Williams was a few minutes late reporting for work, Foreman Bennett asked Williams, "Are you sure that you were not on top of the roof getting cards signed?" While it is clear that Williams was not intimidated by the question, nevertheless, that is not the test. The question or accusation clearly was designed to deter Williams from pursuing lawful union activity and thus violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I have already credited Stafford in certain aspects of his testimony. I come now to what I consider one of the more crucial testimonial accounts recited by Stafford, that in which he quotes Supervisor Carpenter as saying that he had heard that union adherents would be whittled down one by one. Stafford's entire testimonial account showed remarka- ble candor and sincerity. His lack of guile was displayed by his attitude toward his supervisors. In fact his supervisors, Bevers, Carpenter, and Charles Williams, showed that they regarded him highly with respect to his work and his cooperative attitude. In these circumstances and because of Carpenter's evasiveness with regard to the precise question, I fully credit Stafford and find that Carpenter truthfully told Stafford that Respondent intended to whittle down union adherents one by one. I conclude that the evidence beginning with Respondent's Exhibit 1 demonstrates that Respondent, having been keenly disappointed in the results of the May 15 election after having defeated previous union attempts to organize its employees, embarked on a campaign of reprisal to thwart augmentation of union membership and adherence. I come now to: C. The Discharges of Nieto, Stafford, Calhoun, and Williams 1. The Discharge of Stafford Stafford, it is established, was one of the most active union adherents. Not only did Stafford secure 40-50 signatures of employees to union authorization and membership cards but also wore a profusion of union buttons and signs. The testimony shows that Stafford attracted the attention of high management including William Wright, the production superintendent. I infer from the circumstances that Stafford attracted this undue attention by the fact that he was lit up like a beacon by the number of union designations on his person. Thus, it is clear, that Stafford's open and flamboyant display of his union preference was readily apparent to management. In view of Carpenter's confidential report to Stafford, for whom Carpenter apparently had friendly feelings, that management would whittle down the union adherents one by one, it is not surprising that Stafford was marked as one of those slated for elimination. In furtherance of this plan, I find that Stafford was "set up" in a transparent trap from which there was no escape for him because of his inability to read or write and because of Respondent' s classification system. Stafford's employment history is quite revealing in this regard. Stafford, prior to his employment by Respondent, was working for American Manufacturing Company as a machine maintenance man. He left his employment at American to work for Respondent. In seeking employment with Respondent, Stafford was interviewed by Jack Adams, Respondent's personnel manager. He told Adams he was a maintenance man, and Adams informed him that they needed a set-up man. Stafford said he could handle it. Before being hired, he was interviewed by his prospective supervisor, Bevers. He told Bevers that he was a 8 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD maintenance man but would like to tackle the set-upjob if Bevers showed him the machines Stafford would be working on. Later, when Adams gave him an employment application card to complete, Stafford told him that he was going to take it home and have somebody read it and fill it out for him. Stafford told Adams that the limit of his reading ability was to read letters and numbers. When hired, Stafford was classified as a machinist as Respondent didn't have a set-up man classification. He started on January 6 at a rate of $3.06 per hour. After approximately 60 days, he was increased to $3.17 per hour and when a general increase was put into effect on April 20, he was increased to $3.37 per hour. When Stafford was discharged on May 27, he was still receiving $3.37 per hour. During the entire period Stafford was working as a set-up man; Carpenter worked with him on set-up jobs. From time to time when no set-ups were required, Stafford operated various production machines and repaired electric hydraulic controls. On the night of the election, May 15, after the results were known, Stafford was transferred by Foreman Winchester to the operation of a milling machine under the supervision of Charles Williams. Winchester told Williams, in Stafford's presence, that Stafford was to replace a man who was transferred out of the department. Williams asked Stafford if he could run the mill and Stafford replied that he was not a machinist but if he were shown how to do it, he could, saying that he had never operated such a machine before but he could learn quickly. On May 27 about 8:30 p.m., Williams informed Stafford that he was no longer an employee of Respondent. Williams said that Winchester told him that Stafford was being let go because he was not a machinist. Stafford then told Williams that he never claimed to be a machinist. Stafford then went to Winchester and inquired why he was being let go. When informed by Winchester that he was being terminated because he was not a machinist, Stafford reminded Winchester that the night he was transferred he had told Williams in Winchester's presence that he was not a machinist. Stafford left the plant but returned about a week later and talked with Adams. Stafford in his discussion with Adams said that Williams had informed him that he had told Winchester that Stafford's work was good, but Adams replied that there was no way Stafford could return. In cross-examination of Stafford, it was developed that on May 13, 2 weeks before his discharge, Stafford was summoned to Winchester's office in the presence of Carpenter and Bevers. Winchester complained of his work, saying he was lazy among other faults. A day or two later, both Carpenter and Bevers told Stafford that they thought his work was good and the reason they were present in Winchester's office was because they wanted to keep Stafford in their department. James Winchester testified that he was foreman of the night shift during the first 6 months of 1969. In that position, he had supervisory jurisdiction over the machine shop and related operations. Winchester related that Stafford "never did really take onto his job and go with it"; that both of his leadmen, Carpenter and Bevers, com- plained to him repeatedly that he wasn't doing hisjob and unable to complete one without help. Winchester on one occasion talked with Stafford in the shop and "tried to encourage him to latch onto his job." On another occasion, Winchester called Stafford into his office in the presence of Carpenter and Bevers. According to Winchester, "We tried to impress upon him that if he stayed there and held his job he was going to have to get with it"; Winchester told Stafford that higher officials had seen him sitting around and they had asked him what he was supposed to be doing. Winchester then testified, "Also we told him that he was going to have to learn his job. He hadn't really learned his job yet. Actually, I feel like George (Stafford) was hampered in a lot of ways. Really he wasn't qualified to be a machinist, anyway, because he couldn't read and write." After that discussion, Winchester testified that both Carpenter and Bevers reported that Stafford was not doing any better. Winchester decided to have another man, a machine operator from the work department, who could read and write, exchange jobs with Stafford. Thereafter, Winchester noticed that while Stafford was operating machines he was not doing the more skilled work of the previous incumbent. Winchester testified that he thought Williams was assigning Stafford rough work not in keeping with Stafford's rating as a machinist. Under these circumstances, he told Williams to terminate Stafford. He further testified that before ordering Stafford's termination he had consulted with J. C. Lasater, the shop superintend- ent, discussing Stafford's work performance with him on a number of occasions. Winchester, elucidating further, said, "We had been desperate for people for a long time, and we needed a lot of production. So we had to carry along with a lot of things that we wouldn't under ordinary circum- stances. This is the main reason that we hadn't already discharged George." Winchester acknowledged that he knew Stafford was and had been wearing a union button but denied that that fact had anything to do with his discharge.14 On cross-examination, Winchester stated that he learned of Stafford's inability to read or write a month after his employment when Bevers informed him; that he knew Stafford was classified as a machinist when he first started to work; that Stafford had worked in set-up for 4 months before his transfer; that he did nothing about Stafford's employment when he learned of Stafford's illiteracy but hoped he would "pick up and make a hand ... we were desperate in need of people." Winchester testified, however, that at the time of Stafford's discharge the need for men was also desperate; that Carpenter did not report to him that Stafford was doing about as good as any other employee in the department; that he had not conferred with Williams about Stafford's work prior to discharging Stafford and he had not discussed with Stafford his performance under Williams; that he knew of no particular event that caused him to discharge Stafford on that particular night. Johnnie L. Carpenter, who was Stafford's leadman, testified that he observed Stafford's work when he was employed as a set-up man by Respondent and that in his opinion it was not as good as it should have been for the amount of experience that Stafford had on the machines; 14 This statement , as explicated, infra, is not credited FREIGHTMASTER 9 that he had to show him a lot of different things; that he told Stafford he "needed to pick it up"; that he and Bevers discussed Stafford's work several times and thought it wasn't as good as it should have been as they had to be around when he was setting up a machine; that, when they were in Winchester's office with Stafford, Stafford wanted to transfer to maintenance but would not take a cut in pay; that Stafford said he would try to do better and that if he couldn't do better he would quit. In a conversation with Williams after Stafford's transfer, Carpenter admitted that Stafford's work performance as a set-up man had been good. He also admitted that when Stafford was transferred Winchester did not ask him what he thought about it and that he did not recommend a transfer. Carpenter denied telling Stafford that union men would be whittled down one by one, rather that he told him that all employees would be treated alike and that Stafford was frequently away from his job during working hours. On cross-examination , Carpenter stated that he became a supervisor-leadman about a month before Stafford's transfer to Williams' section 15 and that he told Williams that Stafford had done as good as a job at set-up as anyone else had. Elaborating on his appraisal of Stafford's work performance, Carpenter testified that Stafford came in to work for Respondent as a set-up man while other set-up men came out of the shop without training for set-up. As a result, he expected more from Stafford than from other set- up men. Carpenter admitted that much of his help to Stafford consisted of interpreting blueprints and reading instructions. Another factor was that Carpenter did not know all about the machines that Respondent had in the shop. Pressed by the General Counsel to explain what it was that he said to Stafford which was not to be spread in the shop, Carpenter initially evaded the question and then said that one of the matters he was told not to repeat in the shop was that all employees were to be treated equally. Carpenter said he did not remember everything that was said at meetings of supervisors, but that another matter he was not supposed to repeat concerned the discharge of anyone caught signing a union card on company time. Carpenter also conceded that supervisors were told to enforce the rule against patronizing the vending machines except on free time.16 Billy Bevers, presently a night foreman, was a supervisory leadman in the machine shop area and was the supervisor of leadman Carpenter while Carpenter was supervising Stafford. Bevers testified that when Stafford was seeking a job with Respondent, Bevers showed him the machines in the shop and asked Stafford if he had been a set-up man. Stafford replied he thought he could do it, but that he had been in maintenance with American. He was then taken to Adams, the personnel manager, and subsequently came to work under Bevers and Carpenter. Bevers stated that Stafford had trouble with blueprints and that a set-up man is required to be able to read blueprints to do his work. Bevers testified the reason Carpenter, Stafford, and he went into Winchester's office was that Stafford was reluctant to operate a machine when set-up work was not available.17 Stafford, according to Bevers, said he would try to do better and was sent back to work. Bevers further testified that Stafford did better for a while; then he commenced just standing around or going to the restroom for as long as 30 minutes; 18 that on one occasion Lasater and Wright timed Stafford sitting on a bench for 1 hour. Bevers then described another occasion when Winchester offered Stafford a maintenance job at a cut in pay but Stafford refused to take a cut; that shortly thereafter Stafford was transferred to the rework area under the supervision of Williams. On further examination, Bevers testified that he was on vacation when Stafford was terminated and was not consulted; that he discovered Bevers could not read or write 2 weeks after his employment; that Bevers had to help Stafford make out his timecards; that Adams did not discuss with him Stafford's inability to read or write. 19 Charles P. Williams testified that he was the supervisory leadman in the rework department when Stafford was transferred there; that when Stafford was brought into his department by Winchester, no explanation was given to him; that he asked Stafford in Winchester's presence if he was a mill operator; that Stafford replied that he was not but that he could run one if shown; that Williams was surprised how quickly he (Stafford) could catch on, saying, "You could more or less say that he was evidently gifted with a mechanical device. I just went through the procedure on a certain set-up on the mill or the lathes either one, which he run both the mill and lathe." Williams further testified that he never complained to Winchester about Stafford's work, rather that after two or three days, Winchester inquired how Stafford was doing and he told Winchester that he was doing a good job, catching on quickly and could be depended on; that Winchester said, "O.K. But, now, he is not a machinist. If he can't do the job you let me know and we'll get rid of him." According to Williams, there was "heavy" emphasis in this statement; that when Stafford patronized the vending machine during worktime Winchester wanted to discharge him but Williams, when asked, said he would not do so; that Stafford was given a warning only; that Stafford continued to work under Williams and was a "good hand"; that, about a week later, Winchester called Williams into his office and said, "I thought it over, George Stafford has got to go. I should have fired him the other night." Williams then told Winchester that Stafford was doing a good job with a minimum amount of supervision and Winchester replied, "I can't help it. George has got to go." Winchester ordered Williams to discharge Stafford and Williams then notified Stafford he was discharged effective immediately. As I fully credit Williams' testimony in this regard, as I have in other respects, and as I have a high regard for Stafford's truthfulness, I am convinced that Stafford was 15 The evidence shows Carpenter was made a leadman supervisor on February 23. 16 As indicated above, I do not credit Carpenter. I view his testimony as evasive, contradictory and untrustworthy . Where it is in conflict with other testimony particularly that of Stafford and Charles Williams, I credit the latter two. 17 I note this reason is different than Winchester's. 18 I credit Stafford's denial of this habit. 19 It is rather amazing for the hiring procedure to ignore Stafford's illiteracy, especially his inability to read blueprints if this was a prime qualification of a set-up man. 10 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD subjected to a determined campaign by Respondent to induce him to voluntarily quit20 and finally was discharged because of his open and effective union activity. Lasater's and Wright's testimony that they saw Stafford idle and called Winchester's and Bever's attention to it is not credited. I conclude that they saw Stafford displaying his union sympathies in a flamboyant manner and had marked him for elimination in conformance with the whittling down process of union adherents which Carpenter had confidentially disclosed to Stafford. Winchester's statement to Williams that he couldn't help it but Stafford has "got to go" is quite revealing and discloses that pressure was brought on Winchester by higher management to discharge Stafford and not to delay any longer. Carpenter, Bevers, and Williams despite Stafford's disability due to his illiteracy all found Stafford to be a good and agreeable worker. I believe that Carpenter's reluctant and evasive testimony favorable to Respondent's defense was induced by his knowledge that this was what management wanted him to say. Nevertheless, he could not bring himself to say that Stafford was in fact a poor worker, on the contrary, he insisted that he set a higher standard for Stafford and thus found Stafford had shortcomings. Winchester himself was hard put to find any reason for his final decision to discharge Stafford. Winchester merely repeated that he was not a machinist, a fact that was known to management from the first day. It is also apparent that management and supervisors knew that Stafford could not read and write and that Stafford, because he did have an unusual aptitude for mechanical work, functioned satisfactorily despite his handicap. I conclude that they became aware of his illiteracy on the very first day.21 I find that the various reasons advanced by Respondent for Stafford's discharge are pretextual and that the real reason was Stafford's well-known union activities and sympathies. Accordingly, I find that Stafford's discharge violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 2. The Discharge of Juan Nieto I find that Nieto was discharged because of his known union activity and sympathy. The evidence disclosed that Nieto was on vacation at the time he was discharged and it is admitted by Respondent that if this were true, he would not have been discharged. Respondent relies on Supervisor Frank Marshall's testimony that he had changed Nieto's vacation schedule and therefore Nieto was scheduled for work on the day he was discharged. I do not credit Marshall in this regard. The failure of Marshall to notify the front office of the change, his failure to note it on the circulated schedule, and the credited testimony of Nieto in this regard convinces me that Marshall's testimony is contrived to provide a plausible defense for the discharge. While a case may have been established for the discharge of Nieto because of frequent absences and his physical condition, the failure to establish that absence without leave was a cause for discharge, and the falsity of the reason given for the discharge, leads me to conclude that the entire defense 20 The offer of maintenance job at a reduced wage rate. 21 Carpenter and Bevers did help Stafford with interpreting blueprints and directions, as well as giving him assistance with his timecard. 22 Bennett, when told by Williams that he was held up by a traffic in this regard constitutes a pretext. Especially is this true when the evidence shows long toleration of frequent absences by Nieto and an equal toleration of absences from employees in general. Accordingly, I find that Nieto's discharge was violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (1). 3. The Discharge of W. P. Williams Evidence introduced by Respondent in the cross-exami- nation of Williams showed that Williams, some years before his discharge, had played a prominent part in bringing pressure on Respondent by the Federal Govern- ment which resulted in opening up more skilled jobs to black employees. The evidence also showed that it was well known to Respondent's supervisory hierachy that Williams was an active adherent of the Union. Respondent's high sensitivity to the solicitation of union cards is well illustrated by the findings above with reference to Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. Bennett's remark to Williams, on the occasion when Williams was a few minutes late,22 further establishes Respondent's hostility to employees engaging in union solicitation, and demonstrates that Williams' activity in this regard was known to Respondent. With this background, Williams' discharge because of low production becomes circumspect. Williams had been in the employ of Respondent from March 1965 and had worked on at least three different machines after he was given an opportunity to do machine work; nevertheless, Respondent's supervisors testified that during the entire period, Williams was inept and his production was poor. The records 23 produced by Respondent to support this general opinion testimony woefully fall short of the mark. Indeed, the records tend to prove the opposite if consideration is given to the fact, as testified to by Stroud, that the operator of a radial press working on HD cylinders did not load two cylinders at once while an operator working on ARF cylinders did. I appreciate there is a conflict in Stroud's testimony with that of Marshall and Parker in this regard. However, Stroud built the radial press and I am inclined to the view that his testimony is more expert in this -regard. At any rate, I conclude that the limited production records fail to establish Williams' production record was poor or that he was less productive than other radial drill press operators. Respondent, in further defense to Williams' discharge, has laid much stress on Williams' disagreement with Supervisor Lloyd Parker concerning the use of a guard on the radial drill. I credit Williams' testimony that he removed the guard after the dispute was taken to Foreman Bennett, and he was ordered by Bennett to remove it. Parker's testimony to the contrary is not credited. It seems rather plain that if, after Bennett's intercession, Williams had continued his operation of the radial drill with the guard in defiance of Bennett's order, he would have been discharged immediately. I am also convinced that the dispute over the guard was not of such a serious character that it warranted the emphasis placed on it by Respondent at the hearing. It seems rather that accident, asked Williams, "Are you sure you weren't passing cards out on the roof?" 23 G. C. Exh. 5. FREIGHTMASTER 11 Respondent was attempting to resurrect every minor difficulty with Williams, even those of ancient vintage, in an attempt to disguise the unlawful nature of Williams' discharge. Illustrative is the testimony concerning Williams' tardiness and absences as well as the testimony concerning Williams' deficiencies in the operation of machines to which he was assigned months and years ago. If indeed Williams' absentee record and ineptitude were genuine, Williams would have been discharged long ago. Consider- ing all the facts in their entirety, I conclude that Williams was discharged because of his known union activity and sympathy and in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, pursuant to Respondent's plan to eliminate union adherents. 4. The Discharge of James Calhoun James Calhoun, a general machinist, a member of the union's negotiating committee , was employed by Respon- dent from July 1963, to June 23 when he was terminated because of his failure to report for work on the night shift on June 23. The evidence shows that Calhoun operated a farm on which cut and baled hay had been lying. on the ground since Saturday, June 21. According, to Calhoun, he had planned to haul the hay to the barn on nonwork time during the following week. On his way to work on June 23, about 4 p.m., he noticed that a thunderstorm was imminent. Calhoun returned to his home, called Day Foreman Bennett asking to be excused from work for that night. Bennett referred him to Lasater, the night-shift foreman. Lasater refused to grant his request and Calhoun asked if that meant that he would be fired if he didn't come in. Lasater replied, "Yes, I guess it does." Thereafter Calhoun talked with Adams, the personnel manager, and asked if he could advance his vacation. Upon being refused this request, Calhoun said he would try to secure someone else to haul the hay and would come to work later. According to Calhoun, Adams said, "0. K. but don't stay out all night." As Calhoun was unable to secure help, he personally hauled as much hay as he could before the storm made it impossible to work any longer. Calhoun testified that he called his immediate supervisor, Jose Rodriguez, about 8:30 p.m., and asked if it was all right to come in now. Rodriguez replied that Calhoun's termination had been brought in and that he had been terminated. Rodriguez testified that he learned early in the evening that Calhoun would be late and that about 10 or 10:30 p.m. he learned that Calhoun had been terminated; that he was surprised by this information; that he received a call from Calhoun about 11 or 11:30 p.m. and told Calhoun that he had been terminated. Adams testified that when he talked with Calhoun about 4 p.m., he told Calhoun that it would be all right if he were an hour or so late; that Calhoun had said he would make arrangements in that time for someone to haul his hay. Adams then informed Lasater that Calhoun would be an hour or so late. I credit Adams and Rodriguez with regard to the above recited summaries of their testimony. Rodriguez particular- ly impressed me with his truthfulness. Without any compunction, Rodriguez stated that he did not recommend, nor was he consulted, with reference to Calhoun's discharge and that he was surprised when he saw his termination papers. I credit him, therefore, in his assertion that Calhoun did not call him until 11 or 11:30 p.m. I credit Adams with respect to his statement that it would be all right if Calhoun were an hour or so late because Adams knew that Lasater had refused to permit Calhoun to take the entire night off. By allowing Calhoun an hour or so leeway, Adams, in some degree, was countermanding Lasater. I am convinced that Adams would not go any further under the circumstances. Having found that Calhoun in fact did not call Rodriguez until 11 or 11:30 p.m., it is apparent that he could not report for work until approximately midnight. By that time, most of the shift was over as the shift commenced at 4:45 p.m. Moreover, if Calhoun in fact had called at 8 p.m. or 8:30 p.m., he would have been able to report to work about 9 p.m. If that were the case, I believe Calhoun would have reported for work without calling in, as he would have been only 4 hours into a night shift that was scheduled for 10 hours. Under all the circumstances, I find that Calhoun, in open defiance of Lasater's and Adams' refusal to grant him the evening off, failed to report within a reasonable time even after some latitude was granted him by Adams. According- ly, I find that Calhoun was discharged for cause and that the discharge was not violative of the Act. I am fully aware of Calhoun's prominence in the union cause, and I take cognizance of the general lax rules of Respondent with regard to taking time off. However, in Calhoun's case, Lasater apparently on that particular night was concerned with production requirements and insisted on Calhoun's presence within a reasonable time. Calhoun, clearly forewarned of management's attitude, placed his private interest above that of his obligation to Respondent and in open defiance of Respondent's unambiguous instructions 24 Although, the matter is not free from doubt, I do not believe my findings above concerning Respon- dent's other violations and general attitude toward union protagonists warrants a different conclusion. D. The Wage Increases On April 20, Respondent placed into effect a general wage increase of 6 percent. This wage increase was applicable to all employees (5,624) of Halliburton Services, a corporation operating in many parts of the world. The wage increase included those employed (400) at Respon- dent's plant, Freightmaster Division. William E. Wright, manufacturing manager, testified that he first learned of the wage increase 2 days earlier from the headquarters of Halliburton Services at Duncan, Oklaho- ma. Wright further testified that four previous general wage increases since August 1963 had also been applicable on a worldwide basis. Apparently, Wright did know some time in February that a wage increase was pending. Stroud testified without 24 That damage to the hay represented a monetary loss to Calhoun is irrelevant under the circumstances. 12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD contradiction that Wright, in a meeting with supervisors in February, had told them that a wage increase would be forthcoming in March. Wright, according to Stroud, also stated that if the Union charged that this increase was an unfair labor practice, Respondent would cross that bridge when it came to it. As the union campaign was intensified in February and was in full swing by April 20, it is clear that the wage increase granted on April 20 constitutes conduct which tends to interfere with the free exercise of employees' rights under the Act. Motive of Respondent is neither material or controlling.25 However, I believe that there are other circumstances which warrant consideration on the question whether the wage increase was violative of the Act. As noted above, the increase affected 5 to 6 thousand employees in a worldwide organization of which approximately 400 were employed in Respondent's plant. If the wage increase had been withheld from the employees at Respondent's plant, surely it would have been a serious development and clearly a discrimina- tory decision. On the other hand, it is hardly likely that the decision to grant 5,000 to 6,000 employees a wage increase should be construed as designed to influence 400 employees in Respondent's plant. It is true that case law holds motive and intent irrelevant; however, in view of the success of the Union in the election, it would appear that the effect on the employees was de-minimis. Considering all the facts in their entirety, I am pursuaded that finding the wage increase violative of the Act is unwarranted. Accordingly, I find that the wage increase granted on April 20 did not constitute a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By engaging in the conduct set forth in the section of this Decision entitled, 8(a)(1) Interference, Restraint, and Coercion, to the extent therein found, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. By discriminating against and discharging George Stafford, Juan Nieto, and W. P. Williams, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 5. By the discharge of James Calhoun, Respondent did not engage in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 6. By the general wage increase of April 20, 1969, Respondent did not engage in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 7. Allegations of the complaint not found herein to constitute violations of the Act are hereby dismissed. 8. The unfair labor practices found herein are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. III. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent unlawfully discharged Juan Nieto on May 26, 1969, George Stafford on May 27, 1969, and W. P. Williams on June 27, 1969, I shall recommend that Respondent offer them immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions, or if any of the positions are unavailable through change in Respondent's operations, then to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority rights and privileges, and Respondent make them whole for any loss of pay that they may have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimination against them, by payment to the aforesaid Nieto, Stafford, and Williams a sum of money equal to that which they would have normally received as wages from the date of their discriminatory discharge until the day that Respondent reinstates them, less any net earnings for the interim. Backpay is to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum to be computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. As the unfair labor practices found herein strike at the very roots of the employees' rights which the Act is designed to protect, I shall recommend a broad cease-and- desist order. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this case, it is recommended that Freightmaster, a division of Hallibur- ton Services, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Imple- ment Workers of America, UAW, or in any other labor organization by discharging or by discriminating against any of its employees in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (b) Removing union insignia from the toolboxes of employees. (c) Discriminatorily and disparately singling out known union adherents for enforcement of rules prohibiting employees from patronizing vending machines during working hours or rules prohibiting employees from talking to one another during working hours. (d) Interrogating or threatening employees in a manner violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: 25 Exchange Parts Company, 131 NLRB 806, 812, 375 US 405, American Freightways Co, Inc, 124 NLRB 146, 147 FREIGHTMASTER 13 (a) Offer to Juan Nieto, George Stafford, and W. P. Williams immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights or privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of Respondent's discimination against them, in the manner described in "The Remedy" section of this Decision. (b) Notify Juan Nieto, George Stafford, and W. P. Williams, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (d) Post at its plant in Fort Worth, Texas, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 26 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 16, shall, after being duly signed by the Company's representative, be posted by the Company immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ- ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Company to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in writing, within 10 days from the date of receipt of this Order what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.27 26 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, recommendations , and Recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes . In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 27 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps it 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 WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activities in behalf of International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, or any other union by discharging or by discriminating against any of our employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT give different treatment to employees who are members of or active in the Union by threatening them with punishment if they talk or patronize plant vending machines during working hours. WE WILL NOT remove union signs from our employee's toolboxes. WE WILL NOT tell our employees that union members or sympathizers will be whittled down one by one. WE WILL NOT question our employees concerning their union membership and activities or ask them how many employees attended union meetings. WE WILL NOT tell our employees that wearing union signs will hurt them with the Company. WE WILL immediately offer to reinstate George Stafford, Juan Nieto, and W. P. Williams to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent jobs, without prejudice or their seniority or other rights or privileges and pay them any money lost by them as a result of their disciminatory discharge with interest at 6 percent per annum. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist the above-named or any other union, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in other mutual and/or protection, or to refrain from such activities. WE WILL notify George Stafford, Juan Nieto, and W. P. Williams if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. FREIGHTMASTER, A DIVISION OF HALLIBURTON SERVICES (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, may be directed to the Board's Office, 8A24 Federal Office Building, 810 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76102, Telephone 334-2921.