Bloomsburg Craftsmen, Inc.

506 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Bloomsburg Craftsmen, Inc., and Bloomsburg Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union No. 732, affiliated with Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America. Case 4-CA-5145 December 29, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS BROWN AND JENKINS On September 8, 1970, Trial Examiner Robert E. Mullin issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that 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 further found that Respondent had not engaged in certain unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a brief to the Decision. Charging Party has filed a brief in answer to the 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, the briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, as modified hereafter. Respondent's sole exception is to that provision of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Orders affirma- tively directing Respondent to, inter alia, upon request, bargain in good faith with the Union with respect to transfer of employees from one shift to another and, if an understanding is reached, embody such an understanding in a signed agreement. No exceptions have been taken to the substantive portion of this Trial Examiner's Decision. The record, in our view, supports Respondent's exception. The contractual understanding between Respondent and the Union is embodied in a collec- tive-bargaining agreement valid for the period Janu- i inadvertently titled in the Trial Examiner's Decision as "Order" 2 Section 12 1 of the bargaining agreement reads The Company has, retains , and shall possess and exercise all management rights and functions , powers, privileges and authority that it possessed prior to entering into this Agreement with Unions, excepting only such as are specifically relinquished or restricted herein 3 There can be no doubt that the supplemental agreement is an addition to the collective-bargaining agreement and not a mere agreement to end a ary 1969-January 1972. That agreement contains no specific provision regarding shift changes of individu- al employees, but does include a "management rights" clause.2 In July 1969, within the term of the existing collective-bargaining agreement and follow- ing a work stoppage that began on June 30 and continued until July 10, Respondent and the Union executed a supplemental agreement3 to the collective- bargaining agreement. The Supplemental Agreement concerned certain issues then in dispute and set forth the conditions pursuant to which the employees would return to work. The Supplemental Agreement provides in pertinent part: 3. The Company shall continue to have the right to make all job assignments and shift changes in the plant as in the past .. . . We find it clear from the foregoing that Respondent and the Union have agreed, for the term of the bargaining agreement, to vest Respondent with the exclusive right to unilaterally transfer an employee from one shift to another for nondiscriminatory reasons. Under Section 8(d) of the Act, once a bargaining agreement has been executed by a union and an employer establishing terms and conditions for a "fixed period," neither party is under the duty "to discuss or agree to any modification" of these terms or conditions during the contract period.4 Accordingly, we shall delete that portion of the Order directing Respondent to bargain in good faith with the Union with respect to transfer of employees from one shift to another. In view of the Trial Examiner's findings that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by threatening employees with loss of privileges for exercising their protected right to file grievances; by conditioning discussion on the subject of the griev- ances upon formal withdrawal of the grievance; and by polling employees individually in an attempt to induce the Union to abandon the grievance, we find it necessary to affirmatively direct Respondent to offer to process grievances arising under the bargaining agreement without threat, interference, or condition, except as specifically set forth in the bargaining agreement. Accordingly, we shall so modify the Order. work stoppage The supplemental agreement, in the preamble, acknowledges that it is predicated upon the bargaining agreement Further, paragraph 8 of the supplemental agreement provides that all terms and conditions of the collective -bargaining agreement shall remain in full force and effect except as specifically set forth in the supplemental agreement. The agreement is signed by duly authorized representatives of Respondent and the Union 4 C & S Industries Inc, 158 NLRB 454, 457, see Beacon Piece Dyeing and Finishing Co, Inc, 121 NLRB 953, 956 187 NLRB No. 68 BLOOMSBURG CRAFTSMEN, INC. 507 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 Respondent, Bloomsburg Craftsmen, Inc., Sunbury, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as modified herei- nafter: 1. Delete paragraph 2(c) of the Recommended Order and insert the following in its place: "(c) Process grievances arising under the bargaining agreement without threat, interference, or condition, except as specifically set forth in the bargaining agreement and, upon request, bargain collectively in good faith with the Union as the exclusive representa- tive of all employees in the bargaining unit described below with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. The bargaining unit is: All production and maintenance employees at the Bloomsburg plant, excluding plant and office clericals, supervisors, guards and professional employees." 2. In footnote 35 of the Trial Examiner's Decision substitute "20" for "10" days. 3. Substitute the attached Appendix for Appendix attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT transfer employees from one shift to another for the purpose of discouraging union membership in, or activity on behalf of, Blooms- burg Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union No. 732, affiliated with Printing Pressmen and Assist- ants' Union of North America, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT condition discussion of the subject matter of a grievance on its abandonment, poll employees individually in an attempt to get them to withdraw a grievance, refuse to discuss griev- ances or transfers, encourage individual bargain- ing, or threaten reprisals and discriminate against employees for using or attempting to use the grievance procedure. WE WILL process grievances arising under the bargaining agreement without threat, interference, or condition, except as specifically set forth in the bargaining agreement, and, upon request, bargain collectively in good faith with the above-named Union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described below with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employ- ment. The bargaining unit is: All production and maintenance employees at the Bloomsburg plant, excluding plant and office clericals, supervisors, guards and pro- fessional employees. WE WILL offer to reinstate CURTIS R. MOOR- HEAD to his job on the day shift, if we have not already so reinstated or offered to reinstate him, and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of discrimination against him. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist the above-named Union, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. BLOOMSBURG CRAFTSMEN, INC. (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, 1700 Bankers Securities Building, Walnut & Juniper Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107, Telephone 215-597-7601. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ROBERT E. MULLIN, Trial Examiner: The hearing in this case was held on May 5, 6, and 7, 1970, in Sunbury, Pennsylvania, pursuant to a charge duly filed and served,' and a complaint issued on March 27, 1970. The complaint, as amended at the hearing,2 presents questions as to whether the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and ' The original charge was filed on February 5, 1970 2 At the outset of the hearing the complaint was amended to incorporate a reference to the filing of an amended charge by the Union on April 13, 1970 At the time he offered this amendment, however, the (Continued) 508 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. In its answer, duly filed, the Respondent conceded certain facts with respect to its business operations, but it denied all allegations that it had committed any unfair labor practices. At the hearing, the General Counsel, the Respondent, and the Charging Union were represented by counsel. All parties were given full opportunity to examine and cross- examine witnesses, to introduce relevant evidence, and to file briefs. A motion to dismiss the complaint, made by the Respondent at the conclusion of the hearing, was taken under advisement . It is disposed of as appears hereinafter in this Decision. On June 24, 1970, thorough and comprehen- sive briefs were received from all counsel of record. Upon the entire record in the case, including the briefs of counsel, and from his observation of the witnesses, the Trial Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent is a Pennsylvania corporation with a plant and office located in Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania, where it is engaged in the business of printing books. During the year preceding issuance of the complaint, a representative period, the Respondent shipped products valued in excess of $50,000 to customers located outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Upon the foregoing facts, the Respondent concedes, and the Trial Examiner finds, that Bloomsburg Craftsmen, Inc. (herein called Blooms- burg), is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED At the time of the hearing, Bloomsburg Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union, No. 732, affiliated with Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America (herein called Union, or Local 732, had been in existence since about 1965. All of its members are employees of the Respondent. As appears from the caption, Local 732 is affiliated with the Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America. It is also a member of the Middle Atlantic Joint Council of that Union. Since 1965 the Respondent has recognized the Union as the collective-bargaining representative of all production and maintenance employees at its Bloomsburg plant, with the exception of plant and office clericals, supervisors, guards, and professional employees.3 In March 1969, and after the expiration of their original collective-bargaining agreement, the Respondent and the Union negotiated a new contract, for a further term of 3 years. In July 1969, following a work stoppage that began on June 30 and continued until about July 10, the Respondent and the Union executed a supplemental agreement covering certain General Counsel conceded that he was not enlarging the allegations set forth in the complaint as issued on March 27, 1970 3 The Respondent conceded , and the Trial Examiner finds, that the above-described grouping of employees constitutes a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act, and further that the Union is now , and at all times material herein, has been, by virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act , the exclusive representative issues then in dispute and setting forth the conditions pursuant to which the employees were to return to work. Notwithstanding the foregoing history of bargaining relations between the parties, the Respondent denied in its answer, and refused to concede at the hearing, that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. The Trial Examiner, however, on the substantial record developed at the hearing in this matter, concludes and finds that Local 732 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Introduction and Sequence of Events I The Respondent's corporate and labor relations background Bloomsburg, the Respondent herein, is the offset printing division of Haddon Craftsmen. Much, if not all, of the offset printing for the parent corporation is done at the Bloomsburg plant, and the printed sheets so produced are thereafter bound into books at the Haddon works located in Scranton, Pennsylvania. The latter plant has approxi- mately 1,300 employees and for many years Haddon has had collective-bargaining relations with 11 different labor organizations. In addition to most of the principal unions in the printing field, such as the Pressmen, the Bookbinders, the International Typographical Union, and the Mailers, this number has also included the craft unions which represent the machinists, carpenters, electricians, steamfit- ters, and pipefitters. Harold Jones, director of industrial relations for the Respondent, testified that Haddon's bargaining relationship with one of the foregoing unions extended as far back as 1904. It is of some significance that Haddon has never been found guilty of an unfair labor practice. The Bloomsburg plant was opened in 1964. Initially, the plant had one large press, known as a Harris press. Late in 1965 another Harris press was installed. Approximately a year later the Company installed a Crabtree press. Thereafter, at intervals of about a year each, the Respondent installed two more Crabtree presses. Each of these machines was a very large piece of equipment, the purchase price of which ranged from $160,000 to $250,000. The plant operated on a three-shift-a-day basis. On each shift each press had a pressman responsible for the operation of that particular machine. Each pressman on the Harris presses had one assistant, and each pressmen on the Crabtree presses had two assistants? Local 732 was organized at the Bloomsburg plant in 1965. At the time of the hearing it had approximately 70 members, all of whom were employees of the Company. As noted earlier, the Union has had continuous collective- bargaining relations with the Respondent since its incep- tion. In its short history, Local 732 has had two elected of all employees in said unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay. wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment 4 The Crabtree was a substantially more complex machine than the Harris, for it printed both sides of a sheet simultaneously, whereas the Harris only punted one BLOOMSBURG CRAFTSMEN, INC. 509 presidents, the first being William McHugh and the second, Curtis Moorhead. The latter was the principal witness for the General Counsel and the Charging Party and the former was the principal witness for the Respondent Employer. McHugh was instrumental in the establishment of Local 732 and served as chairman of its original negotiating committee. He was elected president of the Local in 1965, at a time when he was still a pressman. A short while after becoming union president he was promoted to working foreman and in January 1968 he was named superintendent of the pressroom. In fact, McHugh had been acting superintendent for some while prior thereto because his predecessor as superintendent had been injured in an auto accident during the summer of 1967 and McHugh had taken over his duties at that point. McHugh resigned as president of Local 732 in December 1967.5 At the hearing he testified that he did not attend any further meetings of the Union after he resigned the presidency, but that he remained an active member until January 1969 when he applied for, and received, an honorable withdrawal card. Curtis Moorhead was one of the original employees hired by Bloomsburg in 1964. He started as an assistant on the first Harris press and in 1967 became a pressman. At the time of the hearing he had been classified as a Crabtree pressman since July 1968, and as such, was one of the three most senior members of the pressroom.6 A biannual election of officers for Local 732 was scheduled for the spring of 1968. In April, Moorhead announced that he would campaign for the post of president which McHugh had vacated the preceding December. He credibly testified that soon thereafter McHugh, who was then superintendent of the press room, inquired if he was interested in becoming a working foreman on the second shift. According to Moorhead, he declined on the ground that he did not feel that he should be both a foreman and president of the local simultaneous- ly. 2. Events occurring prior to the Section 10(b) period It is apparent from the record that after Moorhead was elected president of the Union in about June 1968, he embarked on an aggressive campaign to enforce the terms of the collective bargaining contract. McHugh testified that while he had been president of the Local he had settled a number of verbal grievances, but that he had processed only one written grievance. He testified that with Moor- head's accession to the presidency, the number of written grievances was greatly multiplied, and that, in addition, Moorhead also brought up some oral grievances. As the newly elected president of the Union, Moorhead 5 Charles Williams, the vice president of the local, thereupon became acting president, and served until the next regularly scheduled election held the following spring when Curtis Moorhead was elected president 6 The two others were Robert W Edwards and Henry Shaffer, both of whom were classified as journeymen Crabtree pressmen about 6 months earlier than Moorhead The job progression in the pressroom, in ascending order of importance, was (1) floorboy, (2) second assistant on Crabtree press, (3) assistant on Harris press , (4) first assistant on Crabtree press, (5) Harris pressman , and (6) Crabtree pressman 7 The quotations in the foregoing paragraph are from Moorhead's quickly collided with the plant management. Early in August 1968, an issue arose as to whether the floorboys should continue to be available to relieve the pressmen and assistants during break time. Moorhead demanded that McHugh bring a man in on overtime, if necessary, to provide the pressmen and their assistants the regular break time. Moorhead testified that shortly thereafter at a meeting on this issue with Superintendent McHugh and Plant Manager Alex Maguire, McHugh cautioned him that he could "catch more bees with honey than you can with vinegar" and "that during his term as . . . president of Local 732 . . . he [McHugh] believed in playing ball with the company ...." Moorhead testified that during the same conference Maguire told him that two of the employees could be fired for not working that evening and that if Moorhead "wanted to play by the rule book, that he could be a real bastard ...." 7 A short while later, in an effort to increase the bargaining power of Local 732, Moorhead succeeded in getting the membership to approve its affiliation with the Middle Atlantic Joint Council of the Pressmen. This was a move on the part of the local which McHugh had opposed throughout his incumbency as president.8 Moorhead testified that not long after Local 732 voted to join the Joint Council, McHugh reprimanded him for signing a check for the Union while on duty, although this was the same type check which McHugh, as union president, had always signed on company time. In October 1968, Local 732 and the Respondent began negotiations for a new contract which were not concluded until the following March. Moorhead testified that while engaged in these bargaining sessions he received several warning letters for quality infractions and a 1-day layoff. On at least two occasions during this period the Respondent's management made clear its desire to deal with the employees alone. Late in August 1968, Paul Mont, Jr., a first assistant on one of the Crabtree presses, did not report for certain scheduled Saturday work. The following Monday, on arriving at the plant, McHugh ordered that he come to his office. When Mont declined to do so, unless he could be accompanied by a union representative, McHugh issued a written letter of warning to him, and told Mont that if ever again he "refused to come into office without union representation . . . I would be through." 9 In June 1969, John W. Haycock and Clement McIntyre, two pressmen, were suspended for 2 weeks for violating a plant rule against horseplay. On about June 25 they had a conversation with McHugh and Maguire wherein they protested the severity of their suspension. According to Haycock, whose testimony was credible, these two officials told him and his coworker that if they would confer with Harold Jones, the Respondent's director of industrial relations, without Union Representative Moorhead pres- testimony about this incident which was credible and uncontradicted. 6 In this connection, however, it should be noted that McHugh was not alone in his opposition for, on at least one previous occasion , a vote on the question of affiliation with the Joint Council resulted in its unanimous rejection At the hearing, McHugh further testified, with some conviction, that he had found that the membership of the Council was made up of a preponderance of "letterpress" locals, a field in printing that he felt was on the decline, in contrast with the expanding offset printing field that was of primary interest to the members of Local 732 9 The quotation is from Mont's credible testimony 510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ent, they might be able to get the 2-week suspension order reduced to a layoff of I or 2 days Neither Haycock nor McIntyre would take this course, however, and their suspensions were not reduced.10 As noted earlier, during the latter part of June and early in July 1969, a work stoppage occurred at the Bloomsburg plant. This developed after the Company discharged all the union officers and stewards, a total of nine people. After approximately 10 days, the dispute was resolved with the return to work of all the dischargees and an agreement upon a number of other matters. During the course of the settlement negotiations the Company proposed that the issue as to the reinstatement of Moorehead should be submitted to arbitration, but the Union rejected this proposal and the Company did not insist on this condition. B. The Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5); The Evidence,- Contentions of the Parties; Findings and Conclusions In Connection Therewith The General Counsel alleged that on about November 11, 1969,11 Superintendent McHugh attempted to transfer employees from the first to the third shift because they had exercised their right to bargain collectively through the Union, that on about November 13, McHugh threatened employees with loss of privileges because they exercised their right to bargain through the Union and that shortly thereafter McHugh discriminatorily assigned employee Robert W. Edwards to a less desirable press and discriminatorily reassigned employee Curtis Moorhead from the first to the third shift. All of these allegations are denied by the Respondent in their entirety. Moorhead, one of the three most senior pressmen in the pressroom,12 had been on the second shift for some while, when early in 1969 he was transferred to the third shift. Moorhead testified that he had trouble sleeping and adjusting to that shift, and, as a result, he asked McHugh that he be transferred back to the second shift. Sometime thereafter in 1969, McHugh granted this request. Finally, effective on November 10, and after discussing the matter with Moorhead, McHugh transferred him to the first shift. On November 11, Superintendent McHugh and Shift Foreman Charles Williams held a meeting with all of the day shift pressmen then on duty. There were five such employees, namely; Moorhead, Robert W. Edwards, Henry Shaffer, Doyle Beaver, and John Hayes. McHugh ex- plained that he had called them together to announce that because of production training problems on the third shift, in the near future it would be necessary to transfer most of 10 At the time of the hearing, McIntyre had been promoted to foreman He was never called to the stand by the Respondent Maquire was a witness for the Company, but was never questioned about this incident McHugh testified that during this conversation he told the employees that he had heard that Moorhead had not given them any effective support when the suspensions were first announced and that it might be better to present their own case to the director of industrial relations It is the conclusion of the Trial Examiner that the testimony of Haycock, related above, presents a more accurate account of what was said during the conference in question I' All dates hereinafter are for the year 1969 , unless otherwise noted 12 The other two were Robert Edwards and Henry Shaffer 13 The foregoing findings are based on the credible testimony of Moorhead, Edwards, and Shaffer. McHugh's testimony as to what was said at this meeting was in substantial accord with that of the employees, except the senior pressmen and assistants to the third shift. McHugh told them that part of the problem arose because of the need to man a new press that had been installed recently. This explanation was not satisfactory to the day shift pressmen, however, and they questioned the superin- tendent as to why the third shift supervision was unable to handle any production problems that arose without transfemng senior day shift men to the late night schedule. McHugh declined to answer their questions, however, and told the employees present that he called the meeting solely to tell them what the Respondent was going to do and not to engage in a discussion. McHugh did not, dunng the meeting, name those whom he proposed to transfer.13 McHugh's announcement caused great concern among the five day shift pressmen.14 That evening, all five employees assembled at the home of Henry Shaffer, who, along with being one of those involved, was also shop steward on the day shift. There the five pressmen voted to file a grievance about their proposed transfer which all of them would sign . They did not actually submit this grievance to the Respondent, however, until November 13. In the meantime , and before any grievance was filed, McHugh spoke to Moorhead and assured him that Moorhead would not be transferred for some while, if at all. Thus, Moorhead testified, credibly and without contradic- tion, that on November 12, McHugh called him to his office to tell him that since Moorhead had recently come off the second shift and was then on only the first week as a day shift pressmen, he would give him a reasonable time on the day shift before transfemng him back to night work in the event that became necessary at a later date. During this conversation, McHugh told Moorhead that in the mean- time he would transfer Shaffer to the third shift. Moorhead's testimony as to this conversation with McHugh was undenied. There was other evidence that, at the time of the aforesaid meeting and at least as of November 12, McHugh had made no plan to transfer Moorhead off the first shift. Thus, employee Edwards testified that shortly after the pressmen's meeting with McHugh on November 11, he himself was in McHugh's office with reference to another matter.15 According to Edwards, while there he observed the draft of a new manning list 16 on which two names on the third shift had been crossed out and in their places the names of Henry Shaffer, a first shift pressman, and John Carter, a first shift assistant pressman, had been inserted in ink. Edwards further testified that the same list also indicated that William Stere, a pressman, and one other employee, would be transferred from the third shift to the that he testified that quality of third shift work had entered into the explanation he gave those present The Respondent endeavored to establish that at the meeting McHugh had emphasized that the production problems on the third shift were of a qualitative, rather than of a quantitative nature Moorhead, however, credibly denied having heard McHugh say anything of that character at the meeting. 14 At the hearing McHugh testified that this occasion was the first time he had ever called all the pressmen on a shift to his office as a group 15 It was undisputed that, in connection with his duties as a pressman, Edwards frequently visited the office of Superintendent McHugh is All shift and personnel changes for the pressroom were announced to the employees on what were known as "manning " lists, or tables, which McHugh posted on the bulletin board from time to time and shortly before any change was to be effective. BLOOMSBURG CRAFTSMEN, INC. 511 first. Edwards' testimony in this regard, of course, corroborates Moorhead's account of his conversation with McHugh on November 12, and McHugh's statement that whereas he would not transfer Moorhead in the immediate future, he did plan to transfer Shaffer to the third shift. On the morning of November 13, Moorhead and Shaffer presented to Superintendent McHugh a written grievance which had been signed by all five of the first shift pressmen. In this grievance the employees protested that McHugh's announcement that the first shift employees would be transferred to a later shift violated the collective-bargaining agreement on the ground that Section 13.5 of that contract required the superintendent to refrain from initiating any such transfers without the permission of the employee.17 There followed a brief conversation between McHugh and Moorhead. According to the latter, after McHugh read the grievance he declared that anytime the Company endeav- ored to better working conditions the Union filed a grievance and that, in this instance, the grievance was premature and improperly drafted in that the Company had not yet taken any action as to the transfers. Moorhead replied that the grievance was properly written and that it would require a written response from the Company within the 3-day time limit established by the contract.18 Shaffer testified that after he and Moorhead had presented the grievance and as he was about to leave McHugh's office, the superintendent said to him "Don't ask me for any favors." Robert Edwards testified that shortly thereafter McHugh came up to the press where he was working and, in an obscene characterization of the five who had signed the grievance declared to Edwards "You - - - - - - guys are back filing grievances again." According to Edwards, after this outburst from the superintendent he declared on his own behalf "I'm only one of many" and thereafter McHugh then said "Well, if Moorhead has you wrapped around his finger like that, don't expect any more special favors from me." Edwards testified that he thereupon denied that Moorhead had him "wrapped around his finger", but that the issue involved was one about which he felt very strongly. According to Edwards, McHugh concluded the conversation with the declaration that the issue was one on which he also felt very strongly. McHugh conceded that he had a conversation with Edwards at the time and place in question and that during a discussion of the grievance which had just been filed, he told Edwards that he felt Moorhead had him wrapped around his little finger.19 He disclaimed any recollection of having used any obscene language to characterize the grievants or that he had ever told either Edwards or Shaffer that they need expect no further favors from him. After a consideration of the foregoing testimony and the demeanor of the witnesses at the time of their appearance on the stand, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the testimony of Edwards and Shaffer, insofar as there is any conflict with that of McHugh, represents a more accurate version of their conversation with the superintendent. A meeting to discuss the Union' s grievance was scheduled for 4 p.m. on Friday, November 14. At about 3:30 p.m., a manning list was posted on the plant bulletin board. The latter disclosed that, effective the following Monday, November 17, Moorhead would be transferred to the third shift and that William Stere, a pressman who, as to seniority, was several years junior to Moorhead, would move from the third shift to the first shift. The manning schedule also listed Edwards as being transferred from the press on which he had been working for some time to Crabtree press 3. At the ensuing conference between the Company and the Union, the former was represented by McHugh, Maguire, Jones, and Personnel Director Meredith. The Union was represented by Moorhead, Shaffer, the day shift steward, and Doyle Beaver, secretary of Local 732. At the outset of the meeting Maguire told the union representatives that production difficulties on the third shift made it necessary that some of the more senior employees on the day shift be transferred. Then Meredith told the union committee that if they would withdraw the grievance which had been filed it would be possible for all parties to confer on the issue involved and get it settled. When Meredith got no response to his proposal from the representatives for the local, he thereupon asked each one of them, on two different occasions, if the individual member wanted to withdraw the grievance. When all of the union representatives declined to abandon the grievance the meeting was adjourned. Another conference on the Union's grievance was held on December 3. At this time the Union was represented by Moorhead, John Haycock, and Vice President McCreary.20 The four company officials at the earlier meeting were likewise present this time. In addition, Thomas F. Stutzman, then director of manufacturing, was also there. At the outset of the discussion, Moorhead asked why he had been transferred to the third shift instead of one of the pressmen on the second shift, all of whom had less seniority than he. Maguire then told him that he felt Moorhead had more ability than any of the pressmen on the second shift. Moorhead responded that if that was the case, it was unusual that he should have been cited several times in the recent past for quality infractions arising out of his work on the presses. Maguire terminated discussion of this issue with the statement that he and the Company were the judge in such matters, and that the Union's grievance was denied. Moorhead then requested that the Union be supplied with the records for all shifts on production, down time, and quality infractions in order that the Union be in a position to process the grievance properly. Jones concluded the meeting with a denial of this request on the ground that the 11 Section 13 5 of the current collective-bargaining contract provided "Seniority shall apply to layoff and recall and bidding " is The findings in the foregoing paragraph are based on the credible testimony of both Moorhead and McHugh which in this instance was substantially corroborative of what occurred at the time the gnevance was presented 19 On cross-examination with reference to the conversation he had with Edwards, McHugh was asked the following questions and gave the answers which appear below Q You did think that Moorhead was leading the pack9 A Yes Q " and that's the reason you told him, did you not, because Moorhead had him wrapped around his little fmger9 A Yes 20 The union committee also brought a stenographer to the meeting, one Rhea Miller 512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD records in question concerned confidential matters between the Company and the employees 2' After this meeting the Union did not press the grievance any further, but filed the unfair labor practice charge on which the complaint in the present case issued. Although on November 11, McHugh told the five pressmen on the day shift that in the near future it was likely that all of the more senior employees would be transferred to the third shift, in fact, only Moorhead was moved to that shift. Whereas on November 12, and before the grievance was filed, McHugh told Moorhead that Shaffer would be transferred to the night shift, in fact, Shaffer remained on the first shift. So, too, did Hayes, Beaver,22 and Edwards. As found earlier, however, Edwards was transferred from Crabtree press 5 to Crabtree press 3, effective the same day that Moorhead was transferred to night work. Whereas the General Counsel and the Charging Party contend that the transfer of Moorhead to the third shift and Edwards from one press to another were effected for discriminatory reasons, the Respondent denies all such allegations and contends that both moves were made solely to promote the operating efficiency of the shop. Further, the position of the Respondent, maintained both at the hearing and in its brief, is that nothing in the current collective-bargaining agreement forbade the action which it took in this case, and that it had complete discretion to move pressmen from one machine to another and from one shift to another. The current collective-bargaining contract clearly recog- nizes seniority as a factor to be considered with respect to bidding on new positions.23 There is some question, however, as to whether "bidding" included bidding for a shift by seniority. Moorhead testified that that was the way the parties construed the clause in question. According to him, prior to the preparation of a manning schedule, the employees were accorded an opportunity to exercise their seniority right to shift preference. McHugh, on the other hand, did not agree that this was done in every instance, but he conceded that 90 percent of the time he followed seniority in making shift assignments. He further conceded 21 The findings as to the meetings of November 14 and December 3, which appear above, are based on the credible testimony of Moorhead and Shaffer. McHugh, who testified at length, did not contradict or deny any of their testimony as to these two conferences Maguire and Jones , when on the stand, were asked no questions about these meetings Meredith, who, at the meeting of November 14, was alleged to have polled the union representatives individually on whether they would withdraw the grievance, was never called as a witness for the Respondent. 22 On May 4, 1970, the day before the hearing opened, Beaver was transferred to the third shift This transfer , however, was not an issue in the General Counsel's case 23 See footnote 17 24 The Respondent offered in evidence the manning schedules from September 27, 1968 , to and including December 18, 1969 . These were offered with supporting testimony by McHugh for the purpose of establishing that seniority was not followed, at least with any consistency, in shift assignments In its brief, the Union points out, correctly, that those manning tables for the periods prior to March 4, 1969, have no relevance because the collective -bargaining contract in effect until then made no provision for seniority rights in bidding The manning sheets for the period which covered the summer vacation period from June I to September 29, by McHugh's own admissions, reflected changes necessitated by an endeavor to accomodate employees' vacation plans After putting to one side all of the foregoing exhibits which , for the reasons stated, are not representative, there remain for consideration , substantially only four of that as to the remaining 10 percent of the cases where, for one reason or another, he did not follow seniority, he would discuss the matter with the employee involved as a courtesy to the individual and to solicit his cooperation in waiving any seniority claims. On the basis of the foregoing testimony, and the record herein, the Trial Examiner concludes that, in practice, McHugh followed seniority in making virtually all shift assignments.24 As found earlier, on November 11, the day shift pressmen were told that because of production problems on the third shift the Respondent might have to transfer them all to the late shift. At the hearing the Respondent endeavored to establish that the production problems on the third shift did not involve quantity, but quality. Much testimony was offered on this issue, and Superintendent McHugh testified at length as to alleged difficulties which the crews on the third shift had encountered. The documentation which was offered, however, tended to prove that in the period immediately prior to November 11, the production problems on the third shift were less, rather than greater, than those of any other shift. Thus, on cross-examination McHugh testified as to the company records on production efficiency from November 3 to 13. These records, prepared as to each shift on each working day, disclosed that the chargeable productive work performed on the third shift ranged from 93 to 99 percent each day and that this production efficiency was equal to, or greater than, that of either of the other two shifts. Of even more significance, however, was a letter which the General Counsel offered, and which appears in the record. This was an interoffice memo from Director of Manufacturing Stutzman to Plant Manager Maguire. It was dated October 29, and in it Stutzman lauded Maguire's success in increasing the chargeable time rate on all three shifts at the Bloomsburg plant.25 Stutzman congratulated him on the performance of all the shifts, but he singled out the third shift in particular as having made such a dramatic improvement that it then had the highest percent of chargeable time of all three shifts.26 In the summer of 1969, to improve the quality of work produced, the Respondent had adopted what was known as the manning lists offered , namely Respondent's Exhibits 11, 31, 32, and 33 As to these last numbered manning lists it is significant that McHugh did not testify as to any instance where seniority was not followed in their preparation 25 Stutzman defined chargeable time as the amount of time that is chargeable and billable to the customer, contrasted with downtime for repairs, which is chargeable to the Company. From a production standpoint it is obviously desirable , as Stutzman conceded, to have the highest possible amount of chargeable time 26 This letter read , in relevant part, as follows For the first twenty-one days of October the chargeable time at Bloomsburg has increased The first shift has increased their chargeable time from 55.8% to 59 2%- an increase of 3 4% The second shift has increased the chargeable time from 62 1% to 64 7/-an increase of 2 6% The third shift has increased the chargeable time from 57 8% to 68 2%-an increase of 10 4% 1 am very glad to see the improvement on each shift and you are all to be congratulated for the excellent job that you have done Mr Fedder [Supervisor of the Third Shift ] with an increase of 10 4% is to be commended for the dramatic improvement he has made You will note that the third shift now has the highest percent of chargeable time of all three shifts Again, congratulations for reversing the downward trend and lets have a similar improvement in November [Emphasis supplied ] BLOOMSBURG CRAFTSMEN, INC. 513 a "Quality Infraction Point Program." Employees responsi- ble for any alleged quality infractions were issued demerits known as "quality infraction points." The record of all such points issued for allegedly poor work on the part of the' pressmen was received in evidence. This record discloses that from September 30 the number of points issued to the pressmen dropped very substantially and that it remained at a very low figure for the balance of the year.27 The only documentary evidence offered by the Respon- dent to support McHugh's testimony that quality problems on the third shift were serious was a set of photographs of certain work performed by William Stere, the third shift pressman who was moved to the day shift when Moorhead was transferred on the night shift. The photographs depicted certain work which Stere had performed where the printed material was poorly jogged.28 On the other hand, McHugh conceded that this irregularity was not of sufficient importance to warrant the issuance of any quality infraction points, that Stere had received no such demerits on the job in question, and that, in fact, such points were never issued for improper jogging. From the testimony set forth above, it is apparent and the Trial Examiner finds, that in the period prior to November 1969, Moorhead's leadership of Local 732 represented a substantial change from that which the Union had had when McHugh was the president. Moreover, it is apparent from the background set forth earlier that this adoption of an aggressive attitude on the part of the union leadership met with very substantial resistance from the plant management, most particularly from McHugh, after his appointment as superintendent of the pressroom, and from Maguire, the plant manager. In August 1968, during the first confrontation with the plant hierarchy over an employee grievance, McHugh pointed out to Moorhead that while he (McHugh) had been president of Local 732 he had "believed in playing ball with the Company ..." and Maguire warned Moorhead that if the Union insisted on rigid compliance with what he called "the rule book," he, as the plant manager, "could be a real bastard." Thereafter, when employee Paul Mont insisted that a union representa- tive accompany him if he had to report to McHugh for a disciplinary conference, the latter told him that if he made such a demand again, he would be "through." Later, after employees Haycock and McIntyre had received a 2-week suspension for infraction of the plant rules, McHugh and Maguire advised them that if they wanted a reduction of the penalty that had been imposed, they should make their request to Jones, the director of industrial relations, personally, and without union representative Moorhead being present. On November 11, 1969, McHugh called the five pressmen on the day shift to his office. Of the five, four were, or had been, union officers.29 At that time McHugh 27 Thus, according to Plant Manager Maguire, the number of quality infraction points issued to pressmen on all three shifts during the period from July 14, 1969, to February 4, 1970, was as follows July 14-August 29 19 1/2 August 29-September 30 11 1/2 September 30-November 3 3 1/2 November 3-November 26 2 2/3 November 26-December 13 3 announced the prospective transfer of all of them in the near future to help remedy production problems on the third shift. The next day, however, he told Moorhead privately that his transfer probably would not be necessary for some while and that Shaffer was the only one scheduled for an early transfer. About this same time, Edwards saw the draft of a manning table on McHugh's desk which confirmed McHugh's statement that he planned to move Shaffer to the third shift and leave Moorhead on the first. On November 13, however, after the day shift pressmen submitted the first joint grievance that had been filed at the plant, there was an abrupt change in McHugh's attitude. The superintendent complained that the Union filed a grievance every time the Company sought to improve conditions and warned Shaffer not to ask for any more "favors." Later he cursed out Edwards, characterized him as one whom Moorhead had "wrapped around his finger," and also warned Edwards not to expect any "special favors from me." Just before the meeting on November 14 when Moorhead and his colleagues were to discuss the grievance with management, a manning list was published on which he was scheduled for transfer to the third shift at the beginning of the next week and Edwards was transferred to another press. Later, at the conference which was held on November 14, Meredith, the personnel director, suggested that there was a prospect of resolving their problem but only if the Union would first withdraw the grievance that had been filed. When none of the union representatives voiced any willingness to adopt this proposal, Meredith polled each one individually on the question. Concluding Findings as to Moorhead While it may be presumed that most employees prefer the day shift to the late night shift, in Moorhead's case it was, or should have been, clear to Superintendent McHugh that Moorhead, in particular, did not want to work at night. Early in 1969 and several months before the period in question, when Moorhead had been on the third shift, he had requested that McHugh transfer him to an earlier shift on the ground that working on the late shift caused numerous personal problems for him. As soon as feasible thereafter, McHugh honored this request and transferred Moorhead to an earlier shift. Finally, on November 10, 1969, Moorhead was moved to the day shift. It is the conclusion of the Trial Examiner, on the findings set forth above, that on November 11, when McHugh first announced the transfer plan in question, Moorhead was not one of those whom the superintendent proposed to transfer to the third shift. After Moorhead launched an aggressive protest and resorted to the grievance procedure, however, McHugh again assigned him to the late night shift. The Supreme Court has stated that some conduct is so "inherently destructive of employee interests that it may be deemed proscribed without need for proof of an underlying 28 On leaving the press, the large printed sheets had to be piled neatly in stacks that might eventually become several feet high The pressman was responsible for keeping them in a perfect square, back and side The failure to do this and the irregular stacking which resulted was described as improper Jogging 29 Moorhead, president , Beaver, secretary, Shaffer, day shift steward, Edwards, former steward 514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD improper motive" (N.L.R.B. v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc., 388 U.S. 26, 33, quoting N.L.R.B. v. Brown Food Store, 380 U.S. 278, 287), and that some conduct carries "its own indicia of intent." Erie Resistor Corp. v. N.L R.B., 373 U.S. 221, 228, 231. Earlier herein, it was found, contrary to the Respondent's contentions, that there were no production problems as to quantity or quality on the third shift which dictated Moorhead's reassignment. In the light of these earlier findings, it is the conclusion of the Trial Examiner that McHugh's rescheduling of Moorhead from the first to the third shift was discriminatory and a move which he took in retaliation for Moorhead's activities as a union leader. The penalty imposed on Moorhead in this instance for his reliance on the grievance procedure is clearly within the "inherently destructive" category referred to in the foregoing cases by the Supreme Court. Moreover, the explanations offered by the Respondent for its conduct, do not explain away its actions on a nondiscriminatory basis. Consequently, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that by this course of action as to Moorhead, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1). N.L.R.B. v. Biederman Furniture Co., 397 F.2d 282, 283 (C.A. 8); N.L.R.B. v. Southern Electronics Company, Inc., 302 F.2d 145 (C.A. 6); Interstate Smelting and Refining Co., 148 NLRB 219, 228-229; Schott's Bakery, Inc., 164 NLRB 332, 337. It is the further conclusion of the Trial Examiner that McHugh's statement to Shaffer, after the grievance was filed, that that employee should not "ask me for any favors" and his declaration to Edwards that same morning ".. . don't expect anymore special favors from me" were not simply casual remarks. They were, in fact, coercive and calculated to frighten the employees from pressing their grievances and to chill further union activity. For this reason, such comments were violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Moon River Towing, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 421 F.2d 1, 10 (C.A. 3). It was likewise a violation of Section 8(a)(5) for the Respondent, through McHugh, to threaten employees on November 13, 1969, with loss of privileges for having exercised their protected right to file a grievance and thereafter to implement that threat by discriminatorily transferring employee Moorhead from the first to the third shift. Moreover, it was a further violation of Section 8(a)(5) for the Respondent's officials to condition any discussion of the matter on the employees' withdrawal of that grievance and for Personnel Director Meredith thereafter to poll them individually in an attempt to get the Union's committee to abandon the grievance. Industrial Fabricating, Inc., 119 NLRB 162, 171, enfd. 272 F.2d 184,185 (C.A. 6). Concluding Findings as to Edwards Robert W. Edwards, who, along with Shaffer and Moorhead, was one of the three most senior pressmen in the plant, had been assigned to the No. 5 press on August 4, 30 The record is not clear as to precisely when the No 5 press went into production One exhibit offered by the Respondent indicates that it was purchased by the Respondent on December I, 1969, for the sum of $252,237 The latter date, however, is obviously a typographical error, for the manning tables which the Respondent offered in evidence reflect the assignment of a full complement of pressmen and assistants to No 5, from 1969, when, insofar as the record reflects, that particular press was placed in operation.30 For one day in October, at a time when repairs were being made on No. 5, Edwards was assigned to work on No. 3. Edwards testified that No. 3 was in a very unsatisfactory state of repair and that at the completion of that one shift he complained to McHugh about the condition of the press and told him that he never wanted to work on that machine again. Edwards testified that on November 14, and after the day shift pressmen had filed their grievance, McHugh gave him a quality check on which the superintendent normally spent about 5 minutes. According to Edwards, on this occasion however, McHugh spent twice that much time. Later that same day, when the new manning list was posted, it disclosed that effective the following Monday, Edwards was being moved from the No. 5 press to the No. 3. The General Counsel alleged that this reassignment of Edwards was discriminatory and came about because of Edwards' identification with the other four pressmen who signed the grievance that was presented to McHugh on November 13.31 This allegation is denied by the Respon- dent. McHugh described Edwards as a very conscientious employee who took great care and pride in his work. The superintendent testified that he could not recall having heard Edwards express his displeasure with No. 3 prior to the transfer in question and he further testified that the Respondent had experienced no unusual repair problems with No. 3. According to McHugh the pressmen generally considered press No. 4, and not No. 3, to be what he termed the "dog of the pressroom." Other than Edwards' testimony wherein he professed a strong dislike for No. 3 on the ground that it was old and in disrepair, there was no other evidence offered to establish that this employee's aversion was founded in fact. There was no corroborative testimony of other pressmen as to their experience with the machine and no repair or maintenance records which would tend to establish a factual basis for the contention which Edwards made with respect to the reputation of this particular press. In view of the meticulous care with which the General Counsel and the Charging Party developed the case in support of the complaint and the fact that documentary evidence of the repair record of No. 3 as compared with that of No. 5, was not offered, it may be presumed that had such evidence been offered it would not have supported Edwards' assertions about No. 3. As found above, on the morning that the grievance was handed to McHugh by Moorhead and Shaffer, the superintendent expressed his bitterness about this develop- ment to Edwards, accused the latter of having allowed Moorhead to "wrap him around his finger," and warned Edwards to expect no further favors from him. Edwards may have felt that his subsequent reassignment to another press was a manifestation of McHugh's continuing and discriminatory displeasure. On this record, however, apart and after the week of August 4, 1969. 3i The General Counsel does not contend that either the contract, or custom, dictated that seniority be followed in assigning pressmen to machines, and in its brief the Charging Party concedes that the existing collective-bargaining agreement did not require that press assignments be made on the basis of seniority. BLOOMSBURG CRAFTSMEN, INC. from Edwards' testimony, there is no evidence that work on No. 3 was any less desirable than on No. 5.32 Consequently, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the General Counsel has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Edwards was discriminatorily reassigned from one press to another. Accordingly, it will be recommended that the allegation in the complaint to this effect be dismissed. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce and the Union is a labor organization, all within the meaning of the Act. 2. All production and maintenance employees at the Respondent's plant in Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania, exclud- ing plant and office clericals, supervisors, guards and professional employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 3. Since 1965 and at all times material herein, the Union has been, and is, the representative of all employees in the unit described above, for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employ- ment. 4. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Curtis R. Moorhead because of his union and concerted activities, the Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 5. By conditioning discussion of the subject matter of a dispute on the Union's withdrawal of a grievance, polling employees individually in an attempt to get them to abandon the grievance, threatening reprisals and discrimi- nating against employees for using or attempting to use the grievance procedure, refusing to discuss grievances or transfers, and encouraging individual bargaining, the Respondent engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5). 6. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 8. The Respondent has not engaged in any unfair labor practices other than those herein specifically found. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, the Trial Examiner will recommend that the Respondent be ordered to cease and 32 Both press No 3 and No. 5, as well as No 4, were known as "Crabtrees " They were newer and much more complex than the Harris presses which were designated as No 1 and No 2 According to McHugh, the Company had had problems with all of the Crabtree presses, but most particularly with No 4 33 It may very well develop that Moorhead is entitled to no backpay, for the rate for pressmen on the third shift was $4 26 an hour, whereas the rate 515 desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the Respondent discriminatorily transferred Curtis R. Moorhead on November 17, 1969, from the first shift to the third shift , the Trial Examiner will recommend that the Respondent be ordered to offer Moorhead immediate and full reinstatement without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, to the first shift, and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered from the time of the discriminatory transfer to the third shift to the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement to the first shift . The backpay for the foregoing employee shall be computed in accordance with the formula approved in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289, with interest computed in the manner and amount prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716, 717-721. It will also be recommended that the said Respondent be required to preserve and make available to the Board or its agents, on request, payroll and other records to facilitate the computation of backpay due.33 As the unfair labor practices committed by the Respon- dent are of a character staking at the root of employee rights safeguarded by the Act, it will be recommended that the said Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, the Trial Examiner hereby issues the following recommended: ORDER Bloomsburg Craftsmen, Inc., its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Transferring employees from one shift to another for the purpose of discouraging Union membership in, or activity on behalf of, Bloomsburg Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union No. 732, affiliated with Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, or any other labor organization. (b) Conditioning discussion of the subject matter of a dispute on the abandonment of any grievance previously filed, polling employees individually in an attempt to get them to withdraw a grievance, threatening reprisals, and discriminating against employees for using or attempting to use the grievance procedure, refusing to discuss grievances or transfers, and encouraging individual bargaining. (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self- organization, to form, join, or assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. on the first shift was only $4.05. On the other hand, no evidence was offered as to whether Moorhead worked the same number of hours on the third shift as he would have worked had he remained on the first shift This, and other evidence as to whether Moorhead suffered any diminution of earnings, is a matter that need not be considered until the compliance stage of this proceeding is reached 516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to transfer immediately employee Curtis R. Moorhead from the night shift to the day shift, if he has not already been so transferred, or offered such a transfer, and make him whole in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) 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 or appropriate to analyze the amount of backpay due, if any. (c) Upon request, bargain collectively in good faith with the Union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described below with respect to transfer of employees from one shift to another, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody 34 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 ajudgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the such understanding in a signed agreement . The bargaining unit is: All production and maintenance employees at the Bloomsburg plant, excluding plant and office clericals, supervisors, guards and professional employees. (d) Post at its place of business in Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 34 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 4, after being duly signed by the Respondent, shall be posted by it for a period of 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 Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 4, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this recommended Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.35 The complaint is dismissed in respect to all other allegations not herein found. 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." 31 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director for Region 4, in wnting, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "