Hackney Iron & Steel Co.

HACKNEY IRON & STEEL CO. 297 Hackney Iron & Steel Co. and International Chemical Workers Union , AFL-CIO, Local No . 773. Cases 23-CA-2696 and 23-CA-2931 October 24, 1968 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA On July 30, 1968, Trial Examiner John M. Dyer issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recom- mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respond- ent filed exceptions to the Decision. 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 these cases 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 the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts the find- ings,] conclusions,' and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified below, and orders that the Respondent, Hackney Iron & Steel Co., Navasota, Texas, its officers , agents, successors , and assigns , shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom- mended Order , as herein modified 1. Delete the following language from paragraph 1(a) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order ... "or because they gave testimony under the Act." 2. Delete the following language from the second indented paragraph of the attached Notice: . . . "or because they testified in a Labor Board hearing." I The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent 's policy of granting 40 hours of paid sick leave to its employees indicated its lack of concern over absenteeism . We do not agree with this interpretation and, in reaching our decision , we do not rely to any extent upon the Respondent 's sick leave policy. 2 The Trial Fxaminer concluded that the conduct which constituted violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) also violated 8(a)(4). In view of the fact that the remedy would be the same we do not find it necessary to pass upon that finding . Accordingly , we dismiss that allegation of the complaint TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JOHN M. DYER, Trial Examiner International Chemical Workers Union, AFL-CIO, Local No 773, herein called the Union, on May 5 and July 24, 1967, in Case 23-CA-2696, filed charges against Hackney Iron & Steel Company, herein called Hackney, the Company, or Respondent, alleging that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act by denying pay raises to employees Jesse Perez and William Bradley because of their membership in the Union and because they testified under the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. On October 9, 1967, an informal all party settle- ment agreement containing a nonadmission clause and provid- ing that Perez and Bradley would receive wage increases of 7 cents per hour retroactive to July 1, 1967, and providing for withdrawal of the complaint was approved by the Acting Regional Director As a part of the settlement, Respondent posted a notice to all employees which recited inter alia. We will not withhold wage increases from any employees because of their membership in and/or activities on behalf of the International Chemical Workers Union, AFL-CIO, Local No. 773, or any other labor union, or because they gave testimony under the Act. On January 15, 1968, Jesse Perez for the Charging Party filed the charge in Case 23-CA-2931 alleging that Respondent violated the Act by denying Perez a pay raise on or about January 1, 1968. On February 29, 1968, the Regional Director issued an order withdrawing his approval of and setting aside the settlement agreement in Case 23-CA-2696, and on the same date issued an order consolidating the two cases, a consolidated complaint and notice of hearing in the instant matter. The consolidated complaint alleges that Respondent's super- visor and officer, Frank Turner, Jr., told an employee (Perez) on or about April 12, 1967, that the employee had been denied a merit raise because of his union activities and that he would get a raise if he would cease his union activities. Further the complaint alleges that the denial of merit wage increases to Bradley and Perez on January 1, 1967, constituted violations of Section 8(a)(3) and the denial of merit wage raises on April 8 and July 1, 1967, and January 1, 1968, violated Section 8(a)(3) and (4) of the Act in that the named discriminatees were denied raises because of their union activities and because they testified in a Board case against Respondent. During the instant hearing on April 23 and 24 in Anderson, Texas, the complaint was amended by the addition of an allegation of a denial of a merit increase of April 1, 1968, to Perez as violative of Section 8(a)(3), (4), and (1). Respondent admitted the requisite commerce allegations but denied violating the Act and pleaded that it had entered into a settlement agreement disposing of the matters and alleging that the withdrawal of approval of the settlement agreement was an illegal and invalid act by the Regional Director Respondent admitted that it did not grant merit 173 NLRB No. 45 298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD increases to the named individuals on the dates alleged but denied that such denials constituted a violation of the Act claiming it had good cause for such denials The preliminary question in this proceeding is whether Respondent's denials of raises to Perez on January 1 and April 1, 1968, were violative of the Act and the settlement agreement. If such is the case the second question is whether the previous denials of raises to Perez and Bradley were also violative of the Act. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, including my evaluation of the reliability of the witnesses, based on the evidence received and my observation of their demeanor, and, having noted the prior Board proceedings herein, 167 NLRB No. 84, as partially enforced and partially remanded to the Board by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT AND THE LABOR ORGANIZATION Respondent , a Texas corporation , has its principal office in Dallas, Texas, and a plant at Navasota , Texas, which it acquired from Tru-Weld , August 29, 1966, where it is engaged in manufacturing tank heads for pressure vessels. In the course of its business at the Navasota plant, the only facility involved in these proceedings , Respondent during the prior year sold and shipped goods valued in excess of $50 ,000 directly to points outside the State of Texas. The Respondent admits and I find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Respondent admits and I find that the Union herein is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. II THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background and Undisputed Facts The prior unfair labor practice proceeding was tried on February 7, 1967, in Anderson, Texas. In his decision the Trial Examiner set forth at some length the background of the proceedings and the succession of Respondent as the employer to Tru-Weld at the Navasota plant. In sum, the employees were interviewed by Respondent Vice President Banks and hired at a higher rate of pay. During their interview both Bradley and Perez were told by Banks that Respondent would not recognize the Union nor the recently executed contract. Banks told Perez that at one plant which Respondent had taken over previously, the employees showed their loyalty to the Company by voting out an incumbent union, and that all Respondent's plants were nonunion. Vice President Banks further said he would interview employees and check their production records every 3 months and raises would be given to those who showed they were good employees by putting out more production. The decision also notes that Respondent through both Vice President Banks and its then Plant Manager Turner refused to discuss union affairs with Bradley and Perez and refused to accept formal grievances from the Union. Bradley and Perez testified in the instant proceeding without contradiction that following the initial refusal to accept grievances, they attempted to present some 15 or 16 grievances to Respondent officials during the balance of 1966 and 1967 and on every occasion the grievances were refused until they finally determined it was useless to present grievances and desisted from their attempts. As noted in the prior decision, former Plant Manager Turner and Foreman Burzynski were continued in their capacities with some minor title changes when Respondent took over They remained in those positions until approximately Septem- ber 1967, when Turner was made the manager of manufac- turing for all of Respondent's plants and Burzynski took Turner's position as general manager of the Navasota plant. Insofar as the procedure in giving merit raises is concerned, Respondent's testimony shows that the plant manager together with the foreman determine those who receive the merit raises and the manager of manufacturing's approval is automatic. In the prior case the 8(a)(3) issue concerned whether Bradley and Perez received their proportionate share of overtime work, and the Trial Examiner who determined the issue against them, set forth the problem as follows The remaining issue is whether Union Officials Perez and Bradley were denied their fair proportionate share of Saturday overtime work after Respondent took over the plant, because of their activities for the Union. At the outset, it is clear that Respondent, through Turner and Burzynski, knew that both men were union officials who were constantly trying to process grievances under the Union's contract with Tru-Weld and thus have Respondent recognize the Union. Since Respondent made it clear from the outset that it felt it had no legal obligation to recognize the Union or enforce its contract, and that it preferred a nonunion condition at the plant, Respondent's treatment of the two union leaders as regards overtime work must be scrutinized closely, to see whether Respondent discrimi- nated against them in this respect. In his Decision the Examiner noted that the issues were extremely close and that the record raised a suspicion of discrimination but concluded that such suspicion was not sufficient on which to base a violation. The instant 8(a)(3) and (4) issues have a different genesis than that of the prior case although the manner in which they must be viewed is similar with the addition that the two men played a part in the prior proceeding Respondent maintains that the present cases are not properly brought, in that Case 23-CA-2696 was disposed of by a settlement agreement which retroactively gave raises to Perez and Bradley, and since the raises were granted Respond- ent states it has complied with the terms of the settlement agreement and all matters to that time have been concluded. Respondent argues that the compliance letter it received from the Regional Director notifying it that compliance had been achieved is proof of that conclusion. It is Respondent's further position that it was under no duty to give employees raises every 6 months, raises were given on a selective merit basis, and the mere not granting of raises to Perez in January and April 1968, did not in any way violate the settlement agreement. The General Counsel maintains that the settlement agree- ment has been violated since, in addition to a broad enjoinder that Respondent would not in any other manner coerce its HACKNEY IRON & STEEL CO. employees, the specific negative provision of the notice quoted supra forbids the withholding of merit wage increases because of union activity. Here specific testimony shows that merit raises to Perez were withheld but not for any valid reason but rather because of Perez' union activities and because he testified under the Act and such acts are directly contrary to the negative provisions of the settlement agreement thereby violating the agreement and enabling the Regional Director to set it aside and consolidate the prior case with the subsequent case. To determine both the appropriateness of setting aside the settlement agreement, and whether the new and pnor charges have substance as set out in the consolidated complaint, since the alleged violations are of the same nature, it is appropriate and necessary to consider the history of and the manner in which Respondent gave these raises. After such consideration it is then necessary to determine whether the denial of the raises to Perez in January and April 1968 constituted a violation of the Act and the terms of the settlement agreement and if that answer is affirmative then to consider whether the denials of the raises to Perez and Bradley prior to that time violated the Act. Therefore I will consider first the manner in which these raises were given as documented by exhibits produced by the General Counsel and by Respondent. In considering this matter I bear in mind that Perez and Bradley were the two prime union adherents and representatives who continued to seek company recognition of the Union by their continual presentation of grievances to Respondent. During the instant hearing Respondent tried to show that another employee who was the Union's recording secretary occasionally had his name before Respondent in that he sometimes signed notices concerning union meetings which were posted on Respond- ent's bulletin boards However, there was also testimony that President Perez' name appeared on notices on the bulletin boards as well. No other employees besides Perez and Bradley sought to present grievances to Respondent and seek recogni- tion of the Union. I do not think there is any doubt that the union activities of Perez and Bradley stood out far beyond any of the other employees. In any event, as the Examiner in the prior case noted, with Perez' and Bradley's outstanding union activities, any discrimi- nation against them or acts which appear discriminatory have to be weighed very carefully to determine whether such acts were because of their union activities or for having testified or whether Respondent has a legitimate reason for its actions. In assessing credibility in this proceeding I have sought to measure the oral testimony with other oral testimony and with written records and the pnor findings. In so measuring I have concluded that the testimony of Burzynski and Turner for the most part cannot be credited since their oral testimony as to the reasons for not granting raises to Perez and Bradley is at odds with Respondent's records, prior testimony, and findings and at times with commonsense in that the factors given in the pnor proceeding and on one occasion in this proceeding, are completely misshapen and warped by them in later testimony in an apparent effort to bolster their determination to accord no raises to Perez. Further, a substantial part of Respondent's critical testimony occurred after leading questions which serves in my opinion to debilitate the credibility of such witnesses. 299 B. The Refusal of Merit Raises to Perez and Bradley Jesse G. Perez testified that he had been with the Company approximately 6 years, including his time with Respondent's predecessor. When Vice President Banks interviewed him at the time Respondent took over the plant, he told Perez that every 3 months each employee's record would be reviewed and the Company would try to give raises every 3 months but that they could not give everybody a raise at one time but usually took about half of the employees on one occasion and the remainder the following quarter. William C. Bradley testified that when he was interviewed Vice President Banks told him that every 3 months all of the employees would be reviewed and they would probably give about half of the employees raises every 3 months. During cross-examination Bradley testified Banks did not say that every employee would get a raise every 3 months and similarly on cross-examination Perez testified that he was not saying that every employee was supposed to get a raise every 6 months. Perez testified that Foreman (later Manager) Burzynski told him that every 3 months Respondent would go over the records and give raises but that they could not give them all raises at one time, and the following 3 months they would catch up with the other group and everybody would be treated fairly and squarely. In considering the merit increases, a pattern of raises did not become apparent from either the exhibits of the General Counsel or Respondent until they were considered together and analyzed on a basis of the treatment accorded those hired by Respondent from the predecessor and separately the treatment accorded to those hired thereafter. Once those are laid out, it becomes fairly evident that Respondent sought to even out its wage increases by granting them on a somewhat regular pattern and did accomplish this pattern with the exception of Perez and Bradley in all but two cases and in those the employees received two of seven raises granted without having to file a charge against Respondent and secure a settlement agreement. I further note from Respondent's exhibits that the question of absenteeism cannot be as acute as Respondent would have us believe in that Respondent has apparently established a paid sick leave policy of 40 hours a year for employees with a certain term of service. Thus Respondent has recognized the problems of its employees in becoming sick and has arranged a certain measure of relief for such problems by providing some paid sick leave which should not be considered absenteeism. The question of excess absenteeism devolves to what promoted the absenteeism and whether Respondent felt that the reason was sufficient in order to excuse the person from attendance on that day. A number of these details are shown in Respondent's exhibits which will be considered infra. Various company documents introduced into evidence in the proceeding show that the so-called merit raises were given on October 1 and December 31, 1966; April 8, July I and September 30, 1967, and January 1 and March 31, 1968. General Counsel's Exhibits 3 and 3B contain a listing of employees with their job titles and wage rates from the employees' date of hire by Respondent to the raise of January 1968, including a wage raise of August 5, 1967, which from 300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the document and other testimony was a 5-percent general wage increase given to all employees. An examination of the merit raises limited to the 26 employees originally employed by Respondent on August 29, 1966, but excluding Perez and Bradley from the computations, shows the following- (1) The first raise of October 1, 1966, was given to 12 of the 24 employees then employed and they received 7 cents with 1 employee getting 10 cents (2) In the December 31, 1966, round of raises 1 of the 12 who received the first raise got a second raise, and 10 employees received merit raises for the first time for a total of 22 of 24 employees receiving merit raises in the first two rounds. Two employees, J. Lebeck and Stone, did not receive either the first or second raise but Lebeck received a third-round raise and Stone got a fourth-round raise. (3) The third raise (April 8, 1967) was received by 11 of the 24 employees then employed including Lebeck. Two employees, Heyman and Sanchez, who received the first raise did not get the third-round raise but received the fourth-round raise of July 1, 1967. The remainder were receiving a second raise at the end of 6 months. (4) Of the original 24, 13 received the fourth raise of July 1, 1967. With the exception of Stone and J. Lebeck, for whom this was the first raise, the fourth round of raises confirmed a pattern of employees receiving one out of two raises given. (5) Only 3 of the original 24 employees received a raise in the fifth round of September 30, 1967. For one of the three, Sanchez, it was the second raise in a row putting him back in the pattern of raises every 6 months on the average. The other two raises were based on that pattern. (6) Raises were given to 13 of the original 24 in the sixth round of raises of January 1, 1968. (7) Of the original 24, 10 received a raise in the seventh round of March 31, 1968. Bradley received a seventh-round raise being the first merit raise he was given other than the raises retroactive to July 1, 1967, which he and Perez received as a result of the settlement agreement in Case 23-CA-2696. Considering the sixth and seventh raises together, all of the original 24 employees excluding Bradley and Perez got one raise in those two rounds except Sanchez who by that time had received three raises, in the overall pattern of three raises granted in seven rounds. Considering the total of seven raises given through March 30, 1968, of the original 24 employees (excluding Perez and Bradley) 1 employee received four out of seven merit raises, 20 employees received three out of the seven raises, 2 employees received two of the seven, and 1 employee received three of six. Of four employees who were hired by Respondent in 1966 following the initial round of raises, one employee got three of six raises, two employees got two of six, and one employee had received two of four raises until his name disappeared from the payroll, again conforming the pattern. Of a group of employees who were hired in 1967, one employee got one of five raises granted within 1 year, one emp.Jyee got one of three raises until his name no longer appears on the payroll, four employees got one of four raises, and one employee got two of the four raises granted in an approximate 9-month period. Two employees received one of three raises which were granted within a period of about 7 months or so from the date they were employed. The four employees hired in latter 1966 each received a 7-cent raise on April 8, the date of the third round of raises. Thus, considering Bradley and Perez as 2 of a group of 30 employees they were the only 2 employees who did not receive any raises through September 30, the fifth round of raises with all of the employees receiving at least one raise by that time and only 2 of the original 24 employees having received only one raise until then. Considering all of the raises as a whole it seems that a pattern of granting one raise every 6 months was the norm in the first four rounds of raises and this pattern was stretched over the next three raises to a pattern of three raises in seven rounds. The primary exceptions to this pattern are Bradley and Perez who received a merit raise only as a result of a settlement agreement after the filing of charges with the addition of the seventh-round raise to Bradley. Considered merely on a statistical basis it is clear that Bradley and Perez were discriminated against in the matter of raises. The next question is whether they were discriminated against because of their union activities and because they testified against Respondent or whether Respondent in denying them raises had valid reasons for so doing. Bradley testified that when raises were given and he did not receive one, he asked the reason of his foreman, Burzynski. He stated that the first time Burzynski told him he had a poor attitude and walked away giving no further explanation. On the second occasion Burzynski said that it was poor attitude and no production. Bradley admitted that around July 1967, he was told by his leadman that he was talking too much but said he had never been told about or reprimanded for low production or attitude on any other occasions, nor was he ever told what production goals he should seek to set or maintain. There are no production standards set by Respondent for the operations in Bradley's work area and according to the plant manager and the foreman the employees have never been given specific amounts of work or production standards that they should produce or what production standards are to be met in order to share in the merit raises Bradley as a machinist works with two other employees on lathes turning "heads" for pressure vessels and the different sized heads are turned on different sized lathes. Naturally smaller "heads" can be turned faster in that there is less metal being milled from the "heads." According to Bradley, he works more than the others on the larger "heads." There seems no dispute that Bohack is the best employee in the unit and is used on diemaking work. There is some dispute whether the other employee, Ubnoski does any die work or whether he only assists Bohack. Bradley during cross-examination admit- ted that he had on one occasion grooved a "head," making it unusable, but testified that the others had done so too. This was confirmed by one of Respondent's witnesses. Bradley specifically stated that he had never been told he was making too much scrap and Respondent's witnesses made no such claim. Perez worked in the cutting department from the time Hackney took over the plant having started with the predeces- sor at a $1 .45-an-hour rate and advanced to a $1.95 rate when Hackney began operations. When the first merit raise was given in October 1966 Perez asked Burzynski if he was to receive it and was told that they could not give everybody a raise at the same time and would catch up with the ones they missed the next time around and everybody would be treated fairly and squarely. When the second raise was given in latter December or early January, Perez again inquired of Burzynski why he didn't receive a raise. Burzynski replied that Perez' name was not on the list and walked away. When the third raise of April 1967 was granted and Perez did not receive it, he sought out HACKNEY IRON & STEEL CO. 301 Burzynski again and inquired why. Burzynski told Perez he was makmg enough money and felt he was not putting out enough production but if he wanted to find out any more, to go see leadman Williams. Perez admitted he raised his voice after being told he was making enough money but both Perez and Burzynski agree Perez calmed down after being told to do so by Burzynski. Perez went to see Williams and asked why he did not get a raise. Williams replied that he did not have to answer Perez' questions. Perez told Williams that if he was doing something wrong that Williams as his leadman ought to tell him about it so that he could get it straightened out. Perez specifically testified that prior to this time nothing had been said to him by either Burzynski or Williams about his production. During the conversation Williams said he heard the Union was trying to take his job away. Perez told Williams that Bradley had said they should try to post that job and that he thought Williams was not entitled to the job since Sam Williams was more qualified for the position having been in the department longer and having more seniority. Perez went to then Plant Manager Turner and asked why he had received none of the three raises. Turner told Perez that the foreman had reported Perez' work was not satisfactory. Perez asked whether Turner meant leadman Williams or Foreman Burzyn- ski and Turner replied the foreman and that all of it went back to the time Perez was elected president of the local. Perez said that he was talking about since Hackney took over. Turner said Perez was not working for the Company but if, "You start working for the Company and I will guarantee that you will be involved in those raises." Perez replied that he did not want a raise on any other basis than his work for the Company and that if his work was not satisfactory he should be so informed so that he could improve it. Turner replied that his work had unproved quite a bit as of 1967. Perez said that if his work had improved why wasn't he receiving raises. Turner replied, "You're not working for the Company." The initial charge in Case 23-CA-2696 was filed on May 5, 1967, and Perez testified that thereafter he did not ask the supervisors why he did not receive the raises given out in July and October since the case was then being considered. The settlement agreement in Case 23-CA-2696 was approved on October 9, 1967. When he did not receive the raise given in January 1968, Perez accompanied by Bradley, sought out his foreman, Marvin Becker, and asked about it. Perez testified he asked Becker why he did not receive a raise and Becker replied that he did not know why, but he had recommended Perez for a raise and that Perez' job performance was satisfactory to him and all he could do was recommend Perez for a raise. Becker said that if he wanted, Perez could go to Burzynski and ask about it. Perez told Becker he was not going to go any further with it, since he knew what the deal was and that he would not get it. According to Perez, the eight men in the cutting department on January 1 all got a raise with the exception of himself and a new man Schroeder who had been employed in latter 1967. Bradley testified that when Perez asked Becker about the raise, Becker replied that he had put Perez in for a raise but that was all he could do. Perez was questioned extensively on cross-examination about being absent on a number of occasions for various personal items concerning his family, and family and personal sickness. Perez admitted the occasions he was off stating that on each occasion he had permission from the Company. Respondent questioned Perez as to whether he had used bad language in regard to another employee to Burzynski. Perez admitted he had, and stated he was complaining about the language that the other employee used about him. In regard to absenteeism, Perez testified that when he spoke to Becker about not getting a raise, he asked Becker if absenteeism was the reason, and Becker replied he did not feel that was the reason because he knew of a lot of other employees with absenteeism records who were still getting their raises. As to the reasons why he was absent on occasions, Perez testified that in September 1967 his wife was struck by a pickup truck, and suffered two broken legs and some brain damage which necessitated surgery and he had to take her for checkups, and that in addition his son has asthma and sometimes has to be taken to the hospital on short notice for shots. Perez testified that Respondent's supervisors were aware of these problems, and that none of the supervisors or foremen had ever told him that he was missing too much time or that he was absent too much or that he would have to improve his absentee record in order to qualify for raises. Respondent's Foreman Marvin Becker testified that in January 1968, he sought a raise for Perez from Burzynski stating he hoped Perez would have better attendance and that Perez' work was satisfactory to him. To a series of leading questions suggesting that Perez would have to improve his attendance, Becker testified that Perez' attendance was the main thing, that he was not at work as much as he should be and that he reported this to Burzynski and that some of the employees on the other shift had complained about Perez. According to Becker, Burzynski said it would not help Perez to give him a raise to see if he would work better but that he would have to improve his performance before he could be given a raise. During cross-examination Becker was asked whether he had recommended Perez for a raise on April 1. He answered that he did not do so even though Perez' work was still satisfactory from his point of view. He said he was aware of Perez' wife's condition and took that into account regarding absences and did not talk to Perez about his absences nor about any complaints from employees on the other shift, stating that he felt he had to see for himself if Perez was not working properly, and in his observation Perez' work was satisfactory in the periods of September 1967 to January 1968 and January to April 1968. Asked specifically why he did not recommend Perez for a raise in April he answered, "Well I really don't know sir." To a succeeding question concerning absenteeism he replied that Perez had a good bit of absenteeism since January. Burzynski, who first was the foreman and then became plant manager in September 1967, testified that as plant manager he sits down with the foreman and they go over the men and the records and together decide who merits a raise. Burzynski testified that he never indicated to the men that it was Respondent's policy to give a raise to every man every 6 months but said that they reviewed every man every 3 months. He testified that the basic determination as to merit raises was based on the personal observation of the foreman and that this was a big factor in determining whether a person got a raise. Other factors considered were how well an employee functions in his job, how well he does his job, his attitude toward the Company and toward his fellow employees, and also that the employee's absentee and tardiness records were considered as well as the amount of money the person was makmg for the job he was performing. This original description of the factors was severely distorted by later Respondent testimony. 302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD According to Burzynski some time prior to January 1, 1968, he discussed various employees including Perez with Foreman Becker, and that Becker "suggested that possibly- asked me what I thought about it if maybe we could give Jesse Perez a wage increase. Would this-maybe this would help him to do a better job if we give him a raise. And I told Marvin, no, I didn't think it would and that we don't give-raises on the assumption that someone will do better, we give raises on the past performance or record of this employee." Burzynski said Becker did not say much about it, but reported that some employees had been unhappy with the way Perez was working. Burzynski knew of no investigation of such allegations. As to the April 1967 raise, Burzynski stated that Perez came to him and demanded to know why he didn't get a raise and he told Perez to lower his voice and not get smart, and not be so loud, and that he did not get a raise because of his lack of production and lack of cooperation and his poor attitude and told him never to raise his voice at him like that again Questioned further about Perez' performance he stated that back when he was a foreman 1-1/2 years ago or so Perez had not been performing properly insofar as cooperating with the authorities in getting the plates on the tables and getting the circles off, and he talked to Perez telling him that if he did not intend to cooperate he could get someone who would. Burzynski testified at length about Perez not stamping the cut circles all the time, although it appeared from other testimony that the stamping would not consume more than a few minutes each day and there might be many legitimate reasons why Perez was not on hand to stamp the circles. As noted previously I cannot give much weight to the testimony of Respondent witnesses since the questions asked on their direct testimony were excessively leading and suggested the answers Respondent apparently sought. Further areas were searched out which apparently had no bearing on the decisions to grant or withhold raises and appeared to be afterthoughts as to why Bradley and Perez were not good employees. On one occasion Respondent drew from Burzynski that he consulted leadman David Williams about giving a raise to Perez and that Williams said that in his opinion Perez was not handling his job properly. First, I am inclined to doubt that Burzynski sought Williams' opinion, and secondly, Williams' opinion would be suspect in that he and Perez were apparently performing the same job on different shifts with consequent questions of whether Williams ever observed his work and whether there was a conflict between them as to who was doing how much work. During cross-examination Burzynski testified there were no written records of the production performance of individual employees or records of employee capability so that considera- tion for merit increases had to be based on the observations of the foreman and of the general manager Burzynski continued to modify his testimony regarding the factors for merit raises, dropping the factors to two, those being work performance and absenteeism, (forgetting the others originally mentioned) and then modifying further to say he gave great weight to the absentee record and finally modifying that to say absenteeism was a major factor. As to production he stated the men know they are expected to produce a certain amount of work daily although stating that no quotas had ever been established for the men or for the job or how the men know how much they are expected to do. In contrasting Perez with Williams, since they both hold the same job, it was noted that Williams was paid $2 37 an hour and at one point had received three out of six merit raises. Burzynski was asked if they tried to keep the wages in the same relative area for the same jobs, why Williams was given so many raises and was receiving a higher rate of pay than Perez. His answer was that Williams does a good job and puts out a lot of work and he could not afford not to give him a raise. Burzynski testified that there was no objective way of measuring Perez' production since he performed a number of duties consisting of checking in and moving steel, loading and unloading cutters tables, removing circles from cutters tables, stacking, stamping, and other duties. Concerning his testimony regarding foul language by Perez, Burzynski testified that this was the only time in all the time he had worked in the plant, that he ever heard foul language directed by one employee against another. Respondent, in contrast to the former case, complained that Perez had refused to work on a Saturday claiming he had prior plans. Further testimony developed that Perez had been asked if he wanted to work on a Saturday but declined since his brother was coming in from out of town. Burzynski was sure that he had declined on another occasion and stated that he took these declinations into account in determining whether the employee should receive a merit increase, although saying the employees were never told that such declinations would be held against them. Burzynski was asked whether any announcement to employees had ever been made as to what constituted the standards for merit raises. He replied that they had not talked to employees in a group as to what was expected of them but that he talked to most of the employees individually as to what was expected of them insofar as merit raises were concerned and thinks that they are aware of it. Completely neglected by this testimony is the credited finding in the prior proceeding that Vice President Banks had told employees merit raises would be based on their production. Burzynski stated that the standards for merit raises were work perform- ance and absenteeism but the men might have legitimate absenteeism and also they considered employees' ability to get along with their fellow workers and things of that nature. In regard to Bradley, Burzynski testified Bohack did the die work in that department and Ubnoski helped somewhat, saying that Bradley did not do die work since he was not efficient enough to do so. He testified Bradley grooved a "head" on one occasion and nearly did it again except that he caught the mistake and stopped it before it got too far This occurred during the previous summer in July or August He also testified there was a considerable amount of talk going on between Bradley and others and in particular Ubnoski and that he instructed leadman Bohack to reprimand Bradley for it but did not tell Bohack to say anything to Ubnoski. During cross-examination he stated he only recalled Bradley scrapping one head in the time he worked there and never heard of Bradley not doing his work properly at any other time. He said Bradley had talked to employees since Hackney took over, but he had Bohack correct Bradley on just one occasion. During further cross-examination Burzynski stated that he had given raises to employee Sylvester Tomkivits who had a considerable absentee record and that raises were given to employees who were not as good as Tomkrvits who was an excellent employee, and that some employees would never be as qualified as others although they performed the required duties in less critical jobs and rated a raise. Former General Manager Frank Turner testified that, after HACKNEY iRON & STEEL CO he assumed his present position as Respondent 's manager of manufacturing, his contact with the Navasota plant, insofar as merit raises is concerned , was to automatically approve them. As for the time he was general manager, he testified that in a quarterly review they considered work performance, ability to get along with fellow employees and supervisory personnel, and whether the absentee record was reasonable or unreason- able He said it was not part of company policy to insure that all employees got a raise every 6 months and that no commitments of that sort had ever been made to any of the employees He testified in regard to Perez that on one occasion which he thought was latter September or early October 1967, he reprimanded Perez for hard use of a forklift truck and added that about a year before that he had reprimanded Perez for the same thing. In regard to the April 1967 conversation with Perez, he stated he did not recall that Perez was told if he would start performing in a more satisfactory manner he would start participating in merit raises and that he would not if his attitude and work habits remained the same. He stated that no reference was made to Perez' position as union president. As to Perez' work he stated that Perez did not accommo- date as much of the plate as he could and had too many short pieces in the racks He denies telling Perez that his work had improved stating that he might have told Perez that the racks looked in good shape. On another subject he stated that after the first of 1968, Perez approached him about being put permanently on one shift so that he could attend college, which request he denied stating that he did not recall the specifics of it. Perez testified that he had asked to be placed permanently on the night shift and had consummated an agreement with another employee to work permanently on the day shift so that he could attend college during the daytime and work at night but that his request was refused without being given time to explain that the arrangement was agreeable to all employees concerned. Turner was asked if he had said Perez was not working for the Company and replied that he told Perez on one occasion that he thought he could do a better job for the Company if he set his mind to it. On direct examination Turner was asked what standard was used in determining whether absences are reasonable or unreasonable and answered that they would consider whether the employee was a family man, whether his wife drove or not, whether he had children to be taken to the hospital at times, and that it all depended on the individual . He was also asked why Williams was so concerned with the plates in 1967 when he was working in another area some 500 feet away. Turner stated that Williams was intensely interested in the plates and that he gave him some authority in that direction . Questioned further about it, he stated that he never told Perez that Williams had any kind of authority over him. When asked what sort of arrangement was made between himself and Williams, Turner stated that he was not sure that Williams even knew about the authority. When asked specifically what contact he had besides Williams' intense interest in the plate , he answered that there was none except that Williams was taking surplus circles to the same general area to be stacked and this was the area where Perez was stacking circles. During redirect examina- tion Turner was asked in another long leading question whether Respondent ignored the frequency of absences where people in a family were sick and answered that the frequency 303 of absences had to be considered in granting raises as well as in determining what was reasonable or not. Burzynski was recalled to the stand in regard to his being the final authority on raises, since Turner's approval was automatic , and testified that he considered excessive absen- teeism as a major factor in determining whether employees would be given merit raises and went further to say that if a person has a great deal of absenteeism he cannot adequately be measured for performance of his job. On cross-examination he stated that he did not recall ever telling Perez that absenteeism was one of the reasons that he was not getting his raises. When pressed further as to why he did not tell Perez that was the reason he was not getting a raise, he stated that he didn't recall telling Perez this in the last few months but that he had told him that in the past. When pressed further Burzynski stated that 1-1/2 to 2 years ago, prior to the time that Hackney took over the plant, he had talked to Perez about absenteeism but had never said anything to him since that time. This statement in the context is incredible, since prior to Hackney taking over the plant there was no merit raise system and Burzynski would have had no occasion to tell Perez he was not getting a merit raise because of his absenteeism . Further if Perez' absenteeism was as bad as it is here painted, certainly there would have been an occasion for some of Respondent's supervisors to discuss it with Perez in a period of nearly 2 years. It seems quite ridiculous to state that a determination on giving an employee a raise was made on the basis of his absences, when in denying the person a raise nothing was ever said to him about the frequency or number of his absences. In essence, Burzynski and Turner tried to paint a picture of Respondent granting merit raises only to employees whose production was good and whose absenteeism record was good, although admitting that there were no production standards maintained or quotas given and that none of the employees, in particular the ones who were denied the raises, had ever been warned or had had anything whatsoever said to them about the number of absences they had Burzynski's portrayal of absenteeism as a major factor in raise considerations is certainly an ex post facto consideration here tailored to the situation . Indeed I have determined that other employees' absentee and tardiness records were equal to or worse than Perez' and that these others continued to receive raises. A tabulation of such records is attached here as Appendix II. I cannot therefore credit that Perez was denied merit increases based on his absentee -tardiness record. Respondent had a relatively new (since October 1967) cutting department employee named Schroeder testify. To a series of leading questions, Schroeder testified he saw Perez at the coffee machine, that he had to stamp his own plates, and that Perez was away from the front area and in the back area near another table on occasions. There was no testimony that what Perez did was not done by any of the other employees to a lesser, greater , or the same extent , or that Perez was not busy on other duties when he was away from the front area. I cannot give any weight to Schroeder 's testimony. Looking at the testimony as a whole, I find that I credit the corroborated testimony of Perez and Bradley that Becker told Perez he had requested a raise for him and that is all that he could do. I further credit Perez' testimony that Becker told him that absenteeism was not the reason why he did not get a raise in that others were also absent as much as Perez and still got their raises. There was no denial of this statement by Becker. 304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Concerning the totality of the testimony in this proceeding, I cannot credit that absenteeism plays the predominate role in granting or denying merit raises that Turner and Burzynski seem to state that it did. Certainly if that was the controlling factor then Bradley would have had regular raises and other employees such as Sylvester Tomkivits would not have received three raises. If absenteeism was controlling them Foreman Becker would have been apprised of this prior to the time that he recommended Perez for a raise. Becker was straightforward in his statement to Perez and Bradley and on the stand that Perez was there a sufficient amount of time so that Becker could appropriately appraise his work, and being Perez' immediate supervisor felt that he was entitled to a raise. The qualifications which Respondent sought to interject into the testimony appear to be afterthoughts, in the same manner that a number of rather insignificant incidents which were raised during cross-examination of Perez and in some events gone into with Turner or Burzynski seem to be afterthoughts as reasons for justifying the denials of raises. There well may have been some question of Perez' complete efforts for the Company some years prior, as the Trial Examiner in the former case seems to indicate. However where the testimony indicates that Perez sought from his supervisors the reasons why he wasn't being given the raises and was not given anything concrete, nor told the reasons now being advanced, and later was thought worthy of a raise by his foreman, and was still denied it by higher supervisory authority, I can only conclude that the present reasons advanced by the higher supervisory authority were not legitimate reasons nor given as legitimate reasons at the time the events occurred. As to Bradley, the only thing advanced by Respondent as reasons for not giving him a raise were that he was not quite as good an employee as the other employees in the unit and that on one occasion he grooved a "head," and on another occasion talked too much. Respondent's testimony in this regard must be discounted since the one making the charge alleged that he had worked there for over a year before he found it necessary to have anything said to Bradley concerning his talking. Secondly, the evidence indicated that other employees scrap- ped heads and lastly Turner admitted that Respondent granted raises to other than the best workers in the department Thus, there is no reason advanced for the denial of raises to Bradley which will stand any scrutiny. There being no legitimate reasons advanced as to why Perez and Bradley were not given merit raises on the basis other employees were granted them, and in the light of their union activities and testimony and the strong animus toward the Union exhibited by Respondent, I conclude and find that the credited testimony of Bradley and Perez in regard to Becker's statements to them as to why Perez was not given a raise in January 1968, clearly makes out a violation of the Act, and of the settlement agreement, and constitutes a sufficient reason for setting aside the settlement agreement. In the same manner I find that the denial of a merit increase to Perez on March 31, 1968, when Becker did not recommend Perez for a raise and stated he didn't know why, even though Perez' work was satisfactory to him, demonstrates once more that Respondent was denying Perez a raise but not for any legitimate reasons. I find that the denial of raises to Perez on January 1 and March 30, 1968, violates Section 8(a)(3), (4), and (1) of the Act and the settlement agreement entered into in Case 23-CA-2696. I further conclude and find that the refusal of raise increases to Perez and Bradley during the period of October 1, 1966, through October 1967, are violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act and the refusals of raises following their testimony in February 1967 are violative of Section 8(a)(4) as well, in that the raises were denied to Perez and Bradley because they were outstanding union representatives and tried to promote the Union which Respondent had determined to fight at all costs, and because they testified against Respondent in the prior matter. As was noted in that prior case by the Trial Examiner, very close attention must be given to the indicia of discrimination when the two individuals are the standout union adherents. Here the reasons given for the apparent discrimination do not bear up, particularly when the reasons as advanced by Turner and Burzynski were in effect denied by the prior credited testimony of Vice President Banks in the previous case, that merit increases would be based on production. It appears from the clash of these statements that the emphasis about absenteeism being an overwhelming or a predominate factor in granting raises is an exaggeration and an afterthought of Respondent tailored to Perez' circumstances. If this was predominate or the predominate factor, then there was no reason why raises were given others with bad records or why the raises were denied to Bradley. One further factor which makes this case even stronger is Turner's statement to Perez, and I credit Perez' version, that Turner told Perez his difficulty in getting raises went back to the point at which he was elected president of the local, and that he wasn't working for the Company and would get raises if he started working for the Company. This statement is a clear indication that Respondent felt, as indicated by prior testimony, that the point at which employees demonstrated their loyalty to the Company was when they turned their backs on the Union and abandoned their membership in it. Perez and Bradley didn't Accordingly, I conclude and find Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by Frank Turner's statements to Perez on April 12, 1967, that he had been denied a merit raise because of his interest in the Union and that he would get a raise if he would stop his union activities. III THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section II, above, occurring in connection with the Respondent's opera- tions described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. IV. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent engaged in the unfair labor practices set forth above, I recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act as follows: I have found that Respondent has discriminatonly refused wage increases to employees Perez and Bradley from the time that it started such merit increases. I have further found that a pattern exists wherein the overwhelming majority of employ- ees in the same situation as Perez and Bradley received three of seven wage increases. Taking into account that Respondent HACKNEY IRON & STEEL CO. through the settlement agreement has given one wage increase to Perez and Bradley and a separate wage increase to Bradley over this period of time, I recommend that Respondent grant Perez two more wage increases and Bradley one additional wage increase for the period through April 1968, and that thereafter when any wage increases are granted to other employees on a merit basis, that Perez and Bradley be considered on the same basis that all employees are considered, and that their testimony against Respondent in the prior proceeding and in this proceeding and the fact that they are outstanding union members who have made their union affiliation known to the Company and not abandoned it, not hereafter be considered in granting wage increases. These pay increases are to be made on the basis of the pattern which has been established, and hereafter on the basis granted other employees and Respondent shall add 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, to the raises which should have been given on or before April 1, 1968. I further recommend that Respondent make available to the Board on request, payroll and other records in order to facilitate the checking of amounts due Bradley and Perez. Noting these violations as to Bradley and Perez, as well as the statement to Perez that he would not receive raises while he pursued his union affiliations and the fact that he did not receive such raises, and noting further the violations previously found by the Board as enforced by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, I am of the opinion that Respondent with its animus towards the Union and having by these actions and its other actions shown its proclivities for violating the Act, may again invade the prerogatives of its employees and further violate the Act. I therefore recommend that Respondent be placed under a broad enjoinder to cease and desist from in any other manner infringing on the rights guaranteed its employees by the Act. On the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Hackney Iron & Steel Co. 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 discriminatorily refusing merit raise increases to employees Bradley and Perez and by not granting them such raises, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meanings of Section 8(a)(4), (3), and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. Respondent has also engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meanings of Sections 8(a)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act by telling an employee that he i In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice. In the further event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United 305 could not receive raises due to his union activities but would receive raises if he forewent such union activities. RECOMMENDED ORDER On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case considered as a whole, it is recommended that Hackney Iron & Steel Co. of Navasota, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from- (a) Withholding wage increases from employees because of their membership in or activities on behalf of the International Chemical Workers Union, AFL-CIO, Local No. 773, or any other labor union, or because they gave testimony under the Act. (b) Telling its employees that they had been denied merit raises because of their union activities. (c) Telling employees that they would get raises if they ceased their union activities. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist International Chemical Workers Union, AFL-CIO, Local No. 773, to bargain collectively through representatives of their choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. 2. Take the following affirmative actions which are neces- sary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Make whole William C. Bradley and Jesse G. Perez for the loss of pay they have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimination against them in accordance with the recommen- dations 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 to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order. (c) Post at its Navasota, Texas, plant copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A."i Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 23, shall be posted by Respondent after being duly signed by its representative, immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 23, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.2 States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." 2 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 23, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith." 306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that. Following a trial in which the Company, the Union, and the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board participated and offered their evidence, it has been found that we violated the law and we have been ordered to post this notice and to abide by what we say in this notice. WE WILL NOT tell employees that they will not get wage increases if they aid the Union or that they will get wage increases if they abandon the Union. WE WILL NOT refuse merit wage increases to any of our employees because they aid or are members of Local 773 of the International Chemical Workers Union, or because they testified in a Labor Board hearing. WE WILL make whole William C. Bradley and Jesse G. Perez by paying them wage increases due them. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act. HACKNEY IRON & STEEL CO. (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) 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. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate direct- ly with the Board's Regional Office, 6617 Federal Office Building, 515 Rusk Avenue, Houston, Texas 77002, Telephone 228-4296. APPENDIX B The records produced by Respondent show the following as to the tardiness and absentee records of some of the employees. Present Plant Manager Burzynski testified that the standards for merit raises under former Plant Manager Turner and himself included these two factors. Sylvester Tomkivits was employed from when Respondent took over the Navasota plant and received three raises. Late or Absences Qtr. Yr. left early Sickness Other Causes 3d 66 0 0 0 4th 11 15 i5 0 1st 67 2 26 1 2d 11 6 5 1 3d 4 1 2 4th 27 37 0 1st 68 88 38 3 2d 11 2 0 0 Leo D. Whitfield was employed from when Respondent took over the Navasota plant and received three raises. Late or Absences Qtr. Yr left early Sickness Other Causes 3d 66 2 0 0 4th 11 2 0 0 1st 67 2 0 1 2d 6 0 4 3d " 5 1 0 4th 69 1 0 19 1 1st 68 5 0 0 2d 11 1 0 1 Leonard Mitchell was employed from when Respondent took over the Navasota plant and received three raises. Late or Absences Qtr. Yr. left early Sickness Other Causes 3d 66 0 0 4th 11 2 0 0 1st 67 1 2 211 2d 2 0 3 3d 6 2 0 4th 212 112 0 1st 68 1 113 0 2d " Antoinc Lebeck started with Respondent May 29, 1967, and received a merit raise on September 30, 1967. Late or Absences Qtr Yr. left early Sickness Other Causes 2d 67 0 2 3d 3 0 214 4th 2 0 2 1st 68 0 3 2 2d 11 1 0 4 Troy Wayne Busse started with Respondent on October 16, 1967, and received a raise on March 30, 1968 Late or Absences Qtr. Yr. left early Sickness Other Causes 4th 67 14 1 1st 68 5 2 2 2d 11 0 0 1 1 He took part of I day off apparently due to an in-plant Jesse G. Perez was employed from when Respondent took accident-employee paid for whole day. over the Navasota plant and received no raises but the one granted in the settlement agreement. 2 He was absent sick for 1 week and received 40 hours sick pay. 3 Absent most of 1 week, employee's brother apparently shot and killed. Late or 4 Left early and out over 1 week when wife was struck and severely Absences d b Qtr. Yr left early Sickness Other Causes y car. injure 5 Left early and out sick over 1 week. 3d 66 1 1 0 6 Out sick 3 days on one occasion. 4th 3 0 1 7 Left early sick and apparently out over 1 month for surgery. 1st 67 21 12 3 8 Absent and late on three occasions due to hospitalized brother. 2d 4 4 0 3 4 9 Left early and absent 1 day due to sickness. l t t f f ll d d 10 3d 3 0 l ic e in eye. ue o par Left early and paid or u ay 11 Off 2 d ion for death of father n cc 4th 3 1 2 . ays on o e o as 12 Left earl and off a week sick 1st 68 2 1 2 . y 13 k 2d 11 0 0 0 . Off 2 days sic 14 On one occasion took his mother to doctor. HACKNEY IRON & STEEL CO 307 George W. Burrell was employed from when Respondent James Kendall Minor was employed from when Respondent took over the Navasota plant and received three raises. took over the Navasota plant and received three raises Late or Absences Late or Absences Qtr Yr left early Sickness Other Causes Qtr. Yr left early Sickness Other Causes 3d 66 1 0 0 3d 66 3 0 4th 11 2 0 0 4th 11 5 0 0 Ist 67 1 0 0 1st 67 1 1 0 2d 9 0 315 2d 6 0 0 3d 716 0 0 3d 7 0 0 4th 7 0 0 4th 11 0 0 1st 68 3 1 2 1st 68 5 1 0 2d 11 1 0 0 2d 11 1 1 0 15 On one occasion transported wife from hospital and second 16 On one occasion had eye injury at work and was paid for full occasion took wife to doctor. day.