Slaughter Co.

60 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Slaughter Company and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. Case 16-CA-3124 June 21, 1968 DECISION AND ORDER By MEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA On March 26, 1968, Trial Examiner Horace Ruckel issued his Decision in the above -entitled case , finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep- tions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a sup- porting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed . The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and the brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings , conclusions , and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner insofar as they are con- sistent herewith. The Trial Examiner found, inter alia, that the revised work schedule which the Respondent put into effect on September 29, 1967, reducing the workweek of the eight employees in the assembly department and the stock clerk from a 40-hour to a 16-hour and 24-hour workweek, respectively, was discriminatorily motivated and a violation of Sec- tion 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. He further found that the offer on November 13 to certain striking employees in the assembly department to place them back on a normal workweek, and at the same time announcing that the remaining assemblers and the stock clerk were being laid off, was a further in- dication of the Respondent's illegal conduct, and was also violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. The Trial Examiner held that in view of the Respondent's union animus its economic explana- tion was implausible , noting that this was the first reduction of hours and layoff during its entire 3 years of the Oklahoma operation, that the job changes came at a time when a union organiza- tional campaign was in progress , and that the bulk of the employees affected were union adherents. While we agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent unquestionably had union animus, as is clearly shown by the independent Section 8(a)(1) violations in July as found by the Trial Examiner and which we are herein adopting,' on the record as a whole we are unable to agree, for the reasons discussed below, that the Respondent's actions in September and November were illegally motivated. The Respondent manufactures both standard and custom electrical testing equipment for sale to vari- ous electrical manufacturers . Since its relocation from Ohio to Ardmore, Oklahoma, 3 years ago, both its sales and labor force have increased. Prior to September 1967, the Respondent never had a reduction in its work force nor a reduction in the length of the workweek. The Union began the organization of the Respon- dent's production and maintenance employees dur- ing the first week of July 1967. The record supports the Trial Examiner's finding that the bulk of the union adherents among the Respondent 's approxi- mately 15 production and maintenance employees were 6 of the 8 females who comprised the as- sembly department (Amyx, Call, Glover, Graham, Harris, and Pierce) and the stock clerk (Bryant). The Respondent's attempts, on July 11, following the Union's first meeting, to discourage "outside" organization and to encourage the employees to form "their own committee" are accurately detailed in the Trial Examiner's Decision. Signifi- cantly, the reduction in the hours for the assembly department and the stock clerk took place about 3 weeks after the election on September 7, 1967,2 and about 2-1/2 months after the Respondent's un- successful attempts to encourage an "inside" union. The uncontraditcted testimony of Respondent's President Slaughter was that the level of production of the Company was determined by the ratio of in- ventory to average monthly sales . Slaughter ex- plained that when the ratio was below 1.5 this in- dicated that there were shortages of materials, and. that this would entail difficulty "in keeping produc- tion going," and that when the ratio exceeded 2.0 this was interpreted to mean that too much money ' Since in our opinion the record is unclear as to the manner of Respon- dent's illegal interrogation of its employees concerning their union activity, we make no finding in regard thereto The vote was seven for, and six against, the Union , and two challenged ballots The record does not indicate the disposition of the challenged bal- lots, nor does it appear that either party filed objections to the conduct af- fecting the election. 172 NLRB No. 18 SLAUGHTER COMPANY 61 was tied up in inventory and indicated the possibili- ty of a financial squeeze. Thus, the record shows that in the first 4 months of 1966 the ratio of inven- tory to average sales was low and Slaughter testified that on the basis of this and his forecast that sales would increase in 1967, two additional assembly employees and a stock clerk were hired . However, by the end of April 1967 the ratio began to rise and was up to 2.20 at the end of June and continued to rise through September to 2.58. The record further shows that Respondent became concerned near the end of August and discussions were held as to how it should meet the situation. Of particular concern was the fact that sales of the standard electrical testing equipment, on which assembly department employees and the stock clerk concentrated, had declined and some assembly employees had to be assigned to other work. The testimony of General Counsel's witnesses Amyx and Glover was that more finished manufactured products were on hand at the end of September than they had ever seen. Keaney, Respondent's secretary and production assistant, also testified regarding the excessive product inventories. Near the end of September, Slaughter testified, a decision was made to reduce the production schedule , and in anticipation that the situation was temporary it was decided to reduce the workweek "to avoid the expense of laying people off and then having to retrain them at a later date." Slaughter further testified that the reduced hours were ar- rived at by determining the number of man-hours it needed to maintain the production of custom equipment without adding to the inventory of stan- dard units. As noted above, the nine employees in- volved in the September 29 reduction in hours primarily worked on standard units. The Trial Examiner, in reaching his finding of discriminatory conduct,, concluded that only the above nine production employees "involuntarily" suffered a loss in hours of work. However, it is clear from the record, and indeed from the Trial Ex- aminer's Decision, that the level of production in other departments involved in producing inven- toried goods was similarly reduced. Thus, during September the hours worked by draftsmen were reduced by approximately 60 hours a week. This was accomplished by not replacing a draftsman who quit, and by reducing the workweek of the other two draftsmen, both of whom entered college but continued to work on a part-time basis. Similarly, in the case of the two testers, one of the testers entered college and worked thereafter only on a part-time basis. The stock clerk was reduced from a 5-day week to a 3-day week. The record supports the Respondent's contention that the sheet metal man, clerk janitor, and office employees were not cut back because the reduction in the production of standard units did not greatly affect their work. On September 29 when the Respondent an- nounced the reduction in hours of the assembly de- partment employees and the stock clerk, six of the assembly employees and the stock clerk refused to accept the reduction, went on strike, and picketed the plant. Two of the assembly department em- ployees continued working. On November 13, the Respondent wrote all the employees that business had not improved and that since there were no prospects for increased production in the im- mediate future it decided that the "fair method" was to offer full-time work to some of the assembly department employees on the basis of seniority and lay off the others. The strikers refused this offer and notified the Respondent that they would return when the strike was over. Slaughter testified that in November when the offer was made there was an excessive inventory of standard items, but orders for custom units required additional production work. The General Counsel did not contest the validity of the Respondent's use of the ratio of sales to in- ventory records described above as a business in- dicator, and the authenticity of the data introduced by the Respondent in support of its business deci- sions was not rebutted. Although we agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent had an economic basis to reduce hours as early as April 1967, we are unable to agree with him that by waiting to do so until September it indicated a discriminatory motive. In our opinion, uncontroverted testimony of Respondent's wit- nesses and the uncontested economic data in- troduced in support thereof indicated legitimate business reasons unrelated to union activity for Respondent's actions. It is clear that Respondent's inventories of standard equipment were excessive, that the decision to reduce hours was made only after this condition continued for several months, and that the employees affected were primarily in- volved in the production of equipment which added to the surplus. We further find that the record sup- ports the Respondent's contention that when it of- fered full-time work to certain of the assembly de- partment employees and decided to lay off the others that excessive inventories of standard equip- ment had not been greatly reduced and that there was no showing of the possibility of increased sales of this equipment in the near future. We conclude, therefore, contrary to the Trial Examiner, that con- 62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sidering the record as a whole the General Counsel has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the reduction in hours or the layoffs were discriminatorily motivated. Accordingly, we reverse the Trial Examiner 's findings in this regard and dismiss the allegations that the Respondent vio- lated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.' ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified below and hereby orders that the Respondent, Slaughter Company, Ardmore, Oklahoma, its of- ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom- mended Order, as herein modified: 1. Delete from paragraph 1(a) of the Trial Ex- aminer's Recommended Order the following: t"by reducing the hours of employment, laying them off." 2. Delete from paragraph 1(b) of the Trial Ex- aminer's Recommended Order the following: "by terrogating its employees concerning their union activity or threatening them with reprisals because of such activity." 3. Delete paragraphs 2(a), (b), and (c) from the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order and redesignate the remaining paragraphs accordingly. 4. Delete from the first idented paragraph of the notice the following: ", by discharging, laying off, or reducing the hours of employment, of any of our employees." 5. Delete the second and sixth indented para- graphs of the notice. •' In view of our determination herein , we find it unnecessary to pass upon the General Counsel 's motion to amend complaint to allege that the strike , in which certain of the Respondent's employees engaged after their hours of employment were reduced , was caused by the unfair labor prac- tices of the Respondent TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION HORACE A. RUCKEL, Trial Examiner: Pursuant to a charge filed on October 6, 1967, by Interna- tional Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting through its Regional Director for Region 16 (Fort Worth, Tex- as), on November 20, 1967, issued a complaint of unfair labor practices against Slaughter Company, herein called the Respondent. The complaint, as amended at the hearing, al- leges in substance that Respondent, through certain of its officers, supervisors, and agents, created the impression of surveillance of meetings and other activities of the Union, threatened employees with reprisals because of their union activities, urged employees to establish an "employee committee" in lieu of the Union, and on or about October 2, 1967, reduced the workweek of employees because they joined or assisted the Union, all in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. Sec. 151 et seq.), herein called the Act. Respondent filed an answer denying the commission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to due notice, I conducted a hearing at Ardmore, Oklahoma, on December 13, 1967, at which the parties were represented by Counsel.' At the conclusion of the hearing the parties waived oral argument but thereafter filed timely briefs. Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent is an Oklahoma corporation having its principal place of business at Ardmore, Oklahoma, where it is engaged in the manufacture of electrical testing equipment. During the year prior to the issuance of the complaint, Respondent manufactured and sold at its Ardmore plant goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000, which were shipped from said plant to States other than the State of Oklahoma. The complaint alleges and Respondent's answer admits that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization admitting em- ployees of Respondent to membership. 111. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference , Restraint, and Coercion 1. Background The Union began the organization of Respon- dent's employees during the first week in July 1967. The first meeting was held on July 10, attended by 10 employees and James Witchel, a representative of the Union in charge of organizing Respondent's ' At the hearing , G C Exh. 3 was marked for identification but through inadvertence was not marked as received. It is herewith received. SLAUGHTER COMPANY employees. Various ones signed union authoriza- tion cards. A Board election was held on Sep- tember 7.2 Richard Couchman is employed as a draftsman. Though not a supervisor, he is alleged in the com- plaint to be an agent of Respondent . He attended the organization meeting of July 10. About a half hour after the close of the meeting Couchman's car was observed parked in front of the home of Elmer Slaughter, Respondent's president. Couchman's testimony is that he and Gordon McDonald, super- visor of the shop area, went to Slaughter's home to resume some painting in which they had been en- gaged, and that he did not discuss with Slaughter the Union or the union meeting he had just come from. On the following day McDonald gathered the employees together in a meeting which Slaughter addressed. Slaughter began by saying that he un- derstood that they had had a meeting the night be- fore, that he was sorry they were asking for "out- side " help, suggested that they form "their own committee" to bring their problems to him, and that if they were unhappy in their jobs they could quit and go to General Dynamics plant where a union had recently been recognized as a bargaining agent, and he would give them good recommenda- tions. He emphasized that during the 3 years since the plant began production there had never been a layoff. The above account is based upon the testimony of Amyx and Dorothy Glover, and is uncon- tradicted. Later that day, following the meeting and Slaughter's suggestion that a committee be formed, Couchman prepared a questionnaire in the follow- ing form: YES NO DO YOU THINK AN EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE COULD BE EFFECTIVE IN SOLVING PROBLEMS AT SLAUGHTER COMPANY? YES NO ARE YOU IN FAVOR OF FORMING SUCH A COMMITTEE ON TRIAL BASIS ? COMMENTS: SIGNED 2 There were 15 employees in the unit The vote was seven for the Union, six against , and two challenged ballots 63 Couchman had LaVonne Martin, Respondent's office manager, type this questionnaire and Couchman struck off a number of copies on Respondent's reproducing machine. These he dis- tributed to the employees that afternoon after the coffeebreak while they were gathered in a group on the shop floor. A discussion then took place con- cerning the relative advantages of the Union and an employee committee, which, according to Couchman's own uncontradicted testimony, lasted for about an hour and a half until the 5 o'clock quitting bell. It is not contraverted that during this entire time no work was performed, and no super- visor was present, McDonald, the shop foreman, having left the shop upon the appearance of Couchman with the questionnaires. The un- disputed, credited, testimony of Amyx is that never before during the 3 years Respondent had operated its Ardmore plant had the shop floor been without supervision. Amyx's further credited testimony is that twice during the hour-and-a-half period when the em- ployees were discussing the Union and the forma- tion of a committee, Richard Kearney, Respon- dent's secretary and Slaughter's production assistant, came onto the shop floor where he ob- served the employees not working, said nothing to them, and left. Kearney did not deny these visits to the shop, testifying merely that he did not recall them. I credit Amyx's testimony in this regard, and find that Kearney, as well as McDonald, was aware of Couchman's activities and sanctioned them. According to Couchman, when he collected the questionnaires only one or two had been filled out, so, concluding that the employees favored the Union rather than a committee, the project of forming a committee was dropped. Not, however, Respondent's opposition to the Union. On August 21, 2 weeks before the election, according to the uncontradicted testimony of Steve Brodie, who is in the sign and advertising business, he made on Respondent's order 24 buttons bearing variously the following legends : "NO," "I AIN'T," "NO UNION, STRIKES, DUES," and "VOTE NO. STAY FREE." The buttons were worn in the plant by those employees opposed to the Union, consist- ing largely of office force and supervisory em- ployees, and including President Slaughter, Secreta- ry Kearney, and Office Manager Martin. Martin, on or about the day before the election, according to the testimony of Jo Call, an employee active in the Union, telephoned her at home and, after some general conversation about the Union, told her that her car had been seen at union meetings. Martin , while admitting that she telephoned Call and that the two had occasionally discussed the Union, testified that she did not recall saying to Call that her car had been seen at union meetings . I credit Call's testimony as to this in- cident in preference to Martin's qualified denial, 64 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL and I find that Martin 's statement was calculated to create an impression of surveillance. B. Discriminatory Reduction in the Hours of Work On September 29, Respondent drew up a revised work schedule and posted it on the plant bulletin board. The new schedule affected the eight girls employed as assemblers in the assembly department and Bryant, the stock clerk. It did not affect other production employees, namely, a sheet metal man, two testers (inspectors) and a shipping clerk. Nor were two draftsmen and the office help affected. The result of the revised work schedule was to reduce the workweek of the eight assemblers from 40 hours to 16 hours, the equivalent of 2 days, and that of the stock clerk to 24 hours, or 3 days. Seven of the nine employees affected by the reduction in hours had been active in the union campaign, and were so known to be by Respondent. The other two, Godsie and Wilson, were opposed to the Union and wore antiunion buttons in the plant. The credited, uncontradicted testimony of Amyx is that about the time of the September 7 election, Mc- Donald told Amyx that Godsie would be leaving Respondent's employ in about a month, and that Wilson herself had told her that she would be quitting shortly . Neither Godsie nor Wilson's name is included in the complaint and neither was called as a witness . I conclude that although Godsie and Wilson, the only two assemblers opposed to the Union, were included in the reduction of hours, Respondent knew that they would in any event be leaving shortly. Respondent defends this reduction in working hours on the ground of economic necessity , that is to its overstocking of finished and semifinished electrical units . President Slaughter's testimony is that Respondent endeavors to keep its ratio of in- ventory to average monthly sales within a range of 1.5 to 2.0, that if it runs below 1.5 difficulty is caused in keeping production going , and that if it exceeds 2.0 Respondent is deemed to have too much inventory on hand for the volume of sales. Slaughter testified that he believed there would be an increase in sales during the last half of 1967, and planned accordingly . In April the ratio exceeded 2.0 for the first time when it reached 2.17, falling back to 1.92 in May. At the end of June it was up again , this time to 2.2 . By the end of July the ratio was still unfavorable, and still worse by the end of August. September was worse than August and at the end of that month the ratio was up to 2.58. At this point, Slaughter testified, he decided that something had to be done and the question was "whether it would be better to lay off some people and keep the others on a full week , or-to cut the hours equally" of all assembly employees. He de- cided on the latter course, and arrived at a 2-day week for the assembly employees which would be I ABOR RELATIONS BOARD enough time in which to assemble certain special units which had to be built to order. The first question which presents itself is why, when Respondent adopted the alternative of "cutting the hours equally ," it selected the eight as- semblers, plus the stock clerk, as the group whose hours were to be cut equally rather than the production employees as a whole , which would have included two production draftsmen, the two testers (inspectors), the sheet metal man, and a combination shipping clerk and janitor , or, for that matter the office clerical employees. As to the draftsmen Respondent contends that their total hours were "cut back" from 120 hours per week to 55 or 60. It appears, however, according to Slaughter's testimony that this was not a cutback, but that a third draftsman had quit earlier in Sep- tember and his place was not filled. The other two had not been hired as regular full-time employees, but were students who returned to school as an- ticipated when hired, but continued to work on a part-time basis. As for the two testers, who had together been working a total of 80 hours per week, one of them was not a regular employee but a school boy who returned to school but continued to work 16 hours a week during his spare time. The other tester continued to work 40 hours, thus reducing the total hours in testing from 80 hours per week to 60 hours a week. As to the sheet metal man and the shipping clerk-janitor they were kept at a full 40-hour week, the first because "there was enough work" for him to do so , and the second "because of the nature of his duties." It thus appears that the only production em- ployees who involuntarily suffered a loss in hours of work were the eight assemblers and the stock clerk. The assemblers lost 24 hours per week each, and the stock clerk, 16. Of this group of nine em- ployees, six assemblers and the stock clerk were precisely the active members of the Union whom Respondent had unsuccessfully attempted to per- suade to form an "inside" committee instead of joining the Union; the remaining two assemblers were soon due to leave Respondent's employ, and Respondent knew it. I am not convinced that the reasons advanced by Respondent for reducing the hours of employment are the real reasons. From Slaughter's own testimony it is clear that the Respondent continued production without any reduction in hours from April through September, although admittedly dur- ing that period the ratio of inventory to sales was beyond the 1.5 to 2.00 figure which Respondent as- sertedly attempted to maintain . Slaughter's testimony that he simply was mistaken in expecting the stock-sales ratio to improve each month, I do not accept as a plausible explanation. The fact is that from April through September the ratio was unfavorable, but the hours were not shortened and that no reduction was made until after the Union had appeared and made progress in organizing the SLAUGHTER COMPANY employees. This reduction in the workweek was the only reduction made during the entire 3-year operation of Respondent's plant in Ardmore. When Respondent announced the reduction in hours of the nine assembly girls, Bobby Amyx, Jo Call, Dorothy Glover, Dorothy Graham, Vera Har- ris, and Shirley Pierce, the seven girls who were ac- tive in Union, along with Ronny Bryant, the stock clerk, refused to accept the reduction and went on strike and picketed the plant. The two remaining assembly girls, both of whom wore antiunion badges, continued working for a brief period until, as has been stated, they left for personal reasons as they had been planning to do for some time. On November 13, Slaughter wrote all the em- ployees that business had not improved as expected and, as the fair thing to do, offered Amyx, Glover, Harris, and Wilson work on the basis of a regular 40-hour week beginning November 20, at the same time announcing that the remaining assemblers and the stock clerk were therewith laid off. Slaughter's letter reads as follows on this point: ... The necessary level of assembly operations will be depressed for some time to come. Under these circumstances it now appears that the fair method will be to return the senior as- sembly employees to a full 40 hour week and to layoff the other assembly employees. Amyx, Glover, Harris, and Bryant by telegram re- jected this offer, stating that they would return to their jobs when the strike was over. Whereupon, Slaughter wrote Call, Graham, and Pierce offering them work on a 40-hour basis, as "the fair thing to do." Call, Graham, and Pierce telegraphed back stating that they, too, would come back when the strike was over. It seems apparent that the "fair thing to do" was calculated to split the ranks of the strikers by offer- ing some of them restoration of a 40-hour week, and prescribing for the rest of them a layoff in place of the 16-hour week which had caused the strike in the first place. Respondent's divisive tac- tics, as revealed by its letter to the strikers, fortify my conclusion that the reduction of hours was, in the first instance as well as in its subsequent muta- tion, discriminatory and in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with Respon- dent's operations 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. V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 65 1. The Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Union is a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. By discriminatorily reducing the workweek of Bobby Amyx, Ronny Bryant, Jo Call, Dorothy Glover, Dorothy Graham, Vera Harris, and Shirley Pierce, and subsequently by laying them off, the Respondent has engaged and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 3. By (a) creating an impression of surveillance of meetings of the Union, (b) suggesting in the con- text of an antiunion speech that those employees who were unhappy in their jobs could quit and work elsewhere, (c) urging employees to form an employee committee in lieu of becoming members of the Union, (d) permitting the use of its plant floor during working hours for the purpose of form- ing an employee committee, (e) printing and circu- lating among employees a ballot calling upon them to express a choice between the Union and a com- mittee, and providing for the signature of em- ployees thereon, and (f) by interrogating employees as to their union affiliations, Respondent has en- gaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Sec- tion 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. The above unfair labor practices affect com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. VI. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affir- mative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act. Because Respondent discriminatorily reduced the workweek of Bobby Amyx, Ronny Bryant, Jo Call, Dorothy Glover, Dorothy Grahman, Vera Harris, and Shirley Pierce, it will be recommended that the Respondent offer them immediate and full rein- statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions and work schedules, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges. It will be recommended that the Respon- dent make each whole for any loss of earning he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him by payment of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages from date of the discrimination to the date of the Respondent's offer, less net earnings, if any, during this period. The backpay shall be computed on a quarterly basis prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, approved in N.L.R.B. v. Seven-Up Bottling Company, 344 U.S. 354-126 O-LT - 73 - Pt. 1 - 6 66 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 344, and shall include interest at 6 percent per annum as provided by the Board in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716, approved in Philip Carey Manufacturing Company v. N.L.R.B., 331 F.2d 720 (C.A. 6, 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 888. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this case, it is recommended that Respondent, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in and activities on behalf of the Union, or any other labor organiza- tion of its employees, by reducing the hours of em- ployment, laying them off, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of em- ployment, or any term or condition of employment. (b) Interrogating its employees concerning their union activity or threatening them with reprisals because of such activity; creating an impression of surveillance of union meetings ; suggesting that em- ployees who are not happy in their jobs can quit and work elsewhere; urging employees to form a committee in lieu of becoming members of the Union, and permitting the use of its plant floor dur- ing working hours for this purpose; printing and cir- culating among employees ballots expressing a choice between a committee and the Union. (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exer- cise of their right to self-organization to form, join, or assist labor organizations, including the above- named labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in other concerted actitities for the purpose of collective bargaining or mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Re- porting and Disclosure Act of 1959. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Bobby Amyx, Ronny Bryant, Jo Call, DorothyGlover, Dorothy Graham, Vera Har- ris, and Shirley Pierce immediate and full reinstate- ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions and hours of work without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges. (b) Make whole Bobby Amyx, Ronny Bryant, Jo Call, Dorothy Glover, Dorothy Graham, Vera Har- ris, and Shirley Pierce for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them by payment to them of a sum of money equal to the amount they normally would have earned as wages from the date of the dis- crimination against them to the date of Respon- dent's offer of reinstatement, in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy." (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board and its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security pay- ments records, timecards, personnel records and re- ports, and all other records relevant or necessary to the determination of backpay due to the reinstate- ment and related rights provided under the terms of this Recommended Order. (d) Post at its plant in Ardmore, Oklahoma, co- pies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."3 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Re- gional Director for Region 16, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon- dent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.4 3 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 States Court of Ap- peals Enforcing an Order " shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order " ' In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read - "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX 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 Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership in In- ternational Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , by discharging , laying off, or reducing the hours of employment of any of our employees . Nor will we discourage mem- bership in said Union or any other labor or- ganization by discriminating against any of our employees in regard to their hire , tenure of employment, or any term or condition of their employment. WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate em- ployees concerning their union activities, sym- SLAUGHTER COMPANY pathies, and desires, or those of other em- ployees. WE WILL NOT create the impression of sur- veillance of union activities. WE WILL NOT urge employees to form a committee instead of joining or assisting Inter- national Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, or encourage or assist them in any way in doing so, or poll employees as to their union sentiments. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL offer Bobby Amyx, Ronny Bryant, Jo Call, Dorothy Glover, Dorothy Graham, Vera Harris, and Shirley Pierce immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substan- tially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges. WE WILL also pay them whatever loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of their reduction in hours and layoff with interest thereon at 6 percent per annum. 67 All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining , members of the above-named International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. SLAUGHTER COMPANY (Employer) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Federal Office Building, 819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76102, Telephone 334-2921.