KDI Precision Products, Inc.

KDI PRECISION PRODUCTS, INC. 135 KDI Precision Products, Inc. and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. Case 9-CA-4816 and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION May 23, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND ZAGORIA On February 7, 1969, Trial Examiner Bernard J. Seff issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner' s Decision. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial .Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, 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 herein, and orders that Respondent, KDI Precision Products, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as so modified: 1. Add the following as paragraph 2(c), and reletter the following paragraphs accordingly: "(c) Notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces." 2. Add the following as the fourth indented paragraph of the Appendix: WE WILL notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training STATEMENT OF THE CASE BERNARD J. SEFF, Trial Examiner: This hearing, with all parties represented, was held on October 23 and 24, 1968, at Cincinnati, Ohio, on the complaint of the General Counsel issued on September 20, 1968' and the answer of KDI Precision Products, Inc., hereinafter called the Respondent or Company. The charge,' on which the complaint is based, was filed on July 26 by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as the Union. The complaint, as amended at Representative hearing, alleges that the Company violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act, by its acts in connection with two petitions circulated in the plant to improve working conditions ; by interrogating employees; by confiscating one of the petitions; by soliciting withdrawal of employees from the Union and its organizing committee ; and that by suspending employee Mary Carson and discharging Rebecca Jansen it violated Section 8(a)(3) and/or 8(a)(1) of the Act. Respondent in its answer denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. At the hearing the General Counsel, the Company's Counsel and the Union's representative appeared and participated with full opportunity to present evidence and argument on the issues. Based on the record, my observation of the witnesses, and the briefs filed by the Respondent and the General Counsel, which have been duly considered, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE RESPONDENTS BUSINESS Respondent is a Delaware corporation having a Cincinnati, Ohio plant which is the one involved in this proceeding. During the past calendar year, which is a representative period, Respondent had a direct outflow of products valued in excess of $50,000 which were sold and shipped to points outside the State of Ohio directly from its place of business in Ohio. The Company is engaged in military research and development and manufactures precision arming and fusing systems used in artillery projectiles, bomb fuses and rocket armament. Respondent's answer admits, and I find, that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO is a labor organization ' All dates refer to 1968 unless otherwise stated. 'Respondent's counsel moved to strike the 8(axl) allegations in the amended complaint and renewed both motions in his brief on the ground that the underlying charge is insufficient to support these allegations. I hereby affirm my denial of both motions. The charge, which alleges violations of 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, is sufficiently related to the allegations of the complaint to support it adequately . Fans Milling Co.. 360 U.S. 301; Tear Industries. 139 NLRB 365, enfd . in part and remanded in part 336 F.2d 128 (C.A. 5). 176 NLRB No. 18 136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD within the meaning of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Facts The facts in this case concern the preparation and circulation on July 18 of two petitions by employee Mary Carson, employed as a machine operator in department 15. The petitions demanded that additional fans be installed because of excessive heat in the plant. Indeed, the record shows that July 18 was a very hot day and, in fact, 2 days prior to this date employee Rebecca Jansen had fainted in the plant from the heat and had to be helped to the first-aid room where she remained for a considerable period before she recovered sufficiently to return to work. One of the petitions circulated, which was signed by 17 employees in department 15, states: "We have asked in a nice way for Fans. Now we are going to give you until Break time 9:50 - 7-19-68 or we sit with no work." In the second petition, which was circulated in department 17, the words "we sit with no work" were crossed out by employee Harry Schloss and the words "we may all faint from the heat. Thank you" were added. Foreman Kenny Piatt took department 15's petition away from employees Mary Hardin and Virginia Abbott. When Carson learned that this petition had been taken by Piatt she personally placed Department 17's petition on his desk. Department 15's petition was signed by 17 employees including Carson, Judy Carlos, Rebecca Jansen, Hardin and Darlene Waldrop. Department ITS petition was signed by 25 employees. Piatt turned both petitions over to Respondent's superintendent, Al Wilson, who then brought them to Joe Mayo, Respondent's director of labor relations. Mayo, in turn, brought the petitions to the company president, Walter Cox. Mayo testified that he and Cox were extremely concerned, discussed the matter with the Company's attorney, appraised the situation as a threat on the part of the employees to engage in a sitdown strike or plant seizure and decided to interrogate each signer individually to ascertain what the employees intended to do. The group of 13 employees who signed department 17's petition before the change in language was made by Schloss were closely questioned in the same manner as the employees who signed department 15's petition. The remaining 12 employees were not examined closely because they signed their petition after the threat to "sit with no work" had been eliminated. The Company conceded at the hearing that the focus of its concern was limited to the employees who signed department 15's petition. Starting with the first shift at 7 a.m., July 19, and continuing on July 20, each of the employees was separately called to either Mayo's or Wilson's office where about 75 percent of them were questioned by Mayo and the balance by Wilson. There were two company officials present during the questioning at all times and during part of this time Frank Purdy, the company employment manager, was also present. The interrogations followed similar lines. Each employee, in the order in which his or her name appeared on the petition was asked if the signature was his or hers and they they were asked if it was their intention to abide by what they had signed. Of the five witnesses who testified, Carson, Jansen, Waldrop, Carlos, and Hardin, all except Jansen specifically said they did not intend to carry out the threat but some added that they would do what the others did. In all, approximately 42 employees were individually called away from their jobs during regular working time to be interrogated by Mayo and Wilson in the private offices of these Company officials over a period of about 1 1/2 days. In the course of the interrogation of Jansen, she was asked if she intended doing what was stated on the petition. It is not disputed that she remarked to Wilson, "you know yourself it's hot, we want to do production and can't do it in this heat." Mayo interjected, "We are not interested in that, are you going to do what you said." Jansen then nodded her head in the affirmative to Mayo's question. Jansen testified that she also said in a soft voice, which was probably not heard by Mayo, that she was going to do what the others did. At this point, Jansen was abruptly told to clear out her locker and leave the premises. She was accompanied towards the locker by Frank Purdy part of the way and then escorted to the plant exit by Piatt. On the same day, July 19, Respondent hired a replacement to take her place. Also, on this same day, Respondent advised Carson that she was being suspended for 3 days for circulating the petitions on company time. Apart from Carson and Jansen , no discipline was meted out to any other employees. The employees did not, in fact, sit at their machines or engage in any other concerted activity. In relation to union activity, the following facts were not disputed. A union campaign had been in progress at the plant for some months prior to the incident involving the petitions. Respondent wrote a number of letters expressing its opposition to the Union. The Union, on July 17, wrote a letter to the Company president, listing the 21 employees who comprised the union organizing committee. Respondent wrote to each of the 21 committee members advising them that they would be subject to normal plant discipline and would have no immunity from same because of their union activity. Jansen and Waldrop were members of the union organizing committee. Over a period of some months, Jansen distributed handbills outside the plant on 4 or 5 occasions. She made one such distribution on July 18. Jansen signed up some employees into the Union. On cross examination Jansen said no supervisor ever mentioned this activity to her. Waldrop assisted Jansen in these activities. B. Analysis and Conclusions 1. The discharge of Rebecca Jansen The issue here is whether the activities involved in this matter were concerted activities under Section 7 of the Act and therefore protected against reprisal by the Respondent under Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. It seems clear at the outset that what the employees were seeking to accomplish - to secure fans to alleviate what they considered oppressive working conditions - would normally be considered the proper subject for legitimate concerted action to improve their working conditions. Respondent, however, takes the position that this activity was not protected under the Act because at least as to Jansen, the petition which she signed contained the words" ...we sit with no work," and Jansen nodded her head in assent when asked if she meant to do what was said in the petition. In other words, Respondent argues that by Jansen's affirmation, Respondent believed that she intended to KDI PRECISION PRODUCTS , INC. 137 seize the plant and was encouraging others to do likewise. The cases cited by the Respondent in its brief on this point all involved instances of actual plant seizure, or refusal of employees to vacate the premises when asked, or occurred in an atmosphere of force and violence, none of which was involved here. The words, "sit-down strike," or "plant seizure," are words of art and have a unique meaning in the field of labor law. The General Counsel' s witnesses were young girls or women who were unsophisicated and could not be expected to understand the legal implications which might be drawn from the words "we sit with no work." If Mayo wanted to ascertain whether the employees were threatening to seize the plant or engage in a sit-down strike he could have asked them a direct question as to whether they would leave the plant if ordered to do so. No such question was asked of them. Thus, in the context of the events which transpired, it is apparent that no plant seizure was threatened or intended.' In any event, it strains credulity that Respondent seriously believed that one girl, Jansen, was going to do this by herself. The other four witnesses who testified at the hearing stated that they did not intend to sit at their machines but that they would do what the others did. Even if all the employees had carried out the threat to sit at their machines without work in protest against excessive heat in the plant such activity would be protected from discipline by the Respondent in the absence of either a refusal to leave or some reasonable basis for believing that the employees intended to "seize" the plant. In Crane Company, 145 NLRB 587, the employees did sit at their machines under quite similar circumstances. Here a group of polishers and buffers complained that the plant maintenance department boarded up the windows and ventilators in their work area. A petition, signed by 25 or more employees, was given to their supervisor protesting the closing of the ventilators. The employees worked for about an hour and went to lunch. When they returned the ventilators had not been opened so all but two of the men sat at their machines for about 20 minutes, whereupon the ventilators were opened. The Trial Examiner termed this activity a "sit-down" strike protected by Section 7 of the Act. The Board stated: Although we do not accept the Trial Examiner's characterization of this incident as constituting a `sit-down strike,' we nevertheless agree with him that this work stoppage by employees, as well as formation of the grievance committee, was concerted activity protected by Section 7 of the Act. Thus, it would appear that a discharge for threatening to sit at the machines is a violation of the Act. On facts analagous to this matter there are well-reasoned cases which support the conclusion reached in the instant case . For example, the very recent case Hanes Corporation, 168 NLRB No. 111, involved 35-40 employees who left their work stations, sat on benches and stood around to protest their wages and to request additional help. In that case there was no threat to sit down but an actual sit down did in fact take place. The Company discharged the leader of this activity, both for leading the sit down movement and because it anticipated a second sit down effort would be lead by the same man: The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's finding that the employees were engaged in activities protected by Section 7 of the Act. In Indianapolis Glove Company, 5 NLRB 231, nine employees sat down at their machines from 1:30 p.m. to quitting time at 5:30 p.m. and performed no work (except for uncompensated repair work) in protest over the refusal of their supervisor to accede to certain work demands. Three employees, considered by the Company to be leaders in the sit down activity, were discharged. In finding that the discharges constituted unfair labor practices within the scope of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, the Board said: The Respondent does not contend that if the tippers had walked out of the plant on strike that afternoon, it would have been justified in discharging or refusing to reinstate them for such concerted activity. The fact that in this case the tippers remained at their machines during working hours instead of leaving the plant does not justify their discharge. They were not requested by Respondent to leave, nor did they remain in the plant after the hour at which they were supposed to leave. While the stoppage was going on they did some work for the Respondent's benefit but for which they received no compensation. . They committed no trepans, caused no harm to the Respondent's property and did not prevent other employees from working. The Respondent has not demonstrated in what respect the conduct of the tippers was in any way unlawful or wherein it could be considered `glaring misconduct.'' Under all of the circumstances of this case, and the applicable precedents, therefore, the discharge of Rebecca Jansen was, and it is hereby found to be, a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 2. The suspension of Mary Carson The Respondent contends that Carson was suspended for 3 days because she circulated petitions on July 18 and solicited employees' signatures on them during working hours. It is not denied that Respondent did not have a rule prohibiting such activity on company time. It is also not disputed that about a month prior to July 18 Carson circulated another petition under strikingly similar circumstances - also directed to securing fans to improve working conditions - and on this occasion she was neither disciplined nor warned against engaging in such activity. Therefore, it is clear that Respondent did not rely on the fact that her activity took place on company time as the basis for suspending her. The more reasonable explanation for her suspension was that the Respondent wanted to punish Carson for her role in authoring and circulating the petition in question. As I have found that the circulation of the petition was a protected concerted activity, suspending Carson because she engaged in such activity violated Section 7 of the Act. 3. Confiscation of one of the petitions Department 15's petition was taken from the employees by Piatt without their permission. In the context of the 'It is difficult to conceive that Respondent seriously believed that a few girls were going to seize this large plant against the Respondent's will. (I have taken judicial notice of the fact that in Cases 9-RC-7296 and 9-RM-487 an election was conducted at this plant in June 1967, in which 380 employees cast ballots.) 'See also Andrews Company. 87 NLRB 379, 394; Globe Wireless. Ltd., 88 NLRB 1262, 1266, Lee Cylinder Division of Golay Co ., 156 NLRB 1252, enfd., in relevant part 371 F.2d 259. These cases all hold that the gravamen of a plant seizure involves a refusal by employees to yield possession of a plant when ordered to do so. 138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD facts of this case the seizure of the petition set in motion the chain of events which lead to the interrogation and later discipline of two employees. As has been stated supra in this decision the language of department 17's petition was changed to eliminate the offending words, "we sit with no work ." Until the offending petition had completed its circulation in the plant and had been turned over to Respondent it remained the property of the employees. This would be so up to the time they voluntarily relinquished it. It is not known whether, after the revision in department 17's petition , department 15's petition might not also have been revised in the same manner, had it still remained in the possession of the employees . In any case, the seizure of the petition concerning protected activities which belonged to the employees, especially in view of the use to which it was put, is an illegal interference with the rights of the employees and is violative of Section 7 of the Act. 4. Interrogation The General Counsel argues that the interrogation under the circumstances of this case constituted an independent violation of the employees ' right to engage in concerted activities concerning working conditions and thus violated Section 7. Respondent argues that the reason for the questioning was to give the employees a second chance to avoid engaging in a sit-down strike which it feared was contemplated by them. If the Company wanted to ascertain whether the employees intended to engage in such action it could have asked a direct and clear question like, "Will you remain at your machines if you are ordered to leave the plant?" This could have provided an unequivocal answer to the question as to whether or not a sit-down strike or plant seizure was intended by the employees . Respondent did not ask its employees such a question . Further, the interruption of normal plant operations caused by individually calling in 42 employees to the boss's office seems a most unusual circumstance. The fact that so many employees were called away from their jobs during a normal plant work day, standing alone, has an intimidatory flavor. In the case of Bourne v. N. L. R. B., 332 F.2d 47, modifying and enfg. 144 NLRB 805, there are set forth certain indicia of employer action which, if met, would constitute illegal interrogation. Some of the considerations there enumerated were present in this case . Depending on the answers given by the employees the Respondent clearly sought information upon which to base disciplinary action against individual employees. The place and method employed by the Company must have created fear and anxiety in the minds of the employees, who were individually called away from work to the boss's office where, in an atmosphere of unnatural formality, they were questioned by high officials of the Respondent. Under the circumstances, and giving added consideration to the underlying fact that the Respondent's course of interrogation was predicated on a totally unwarranted assumption that it was faced with a sit-down strike, I find that the Respondent violated the Act by engaging in illegal interrogation. Company wrote each employee explaining how they could cancel their union authorization cards by writing a letter to the Union saying, ". . . I hereby cancel and revoke the union authorization card I signed. . . The letter continues: Such a letter, of course, must be signed and dated and the writer should be sure to keep a copy of it. Your supervisor or anyone in Personnel will be glad to answer any questions about your rights in this respect. The General Counsel argued that the letter of July 24 is violative of the Act. It should be noted that the letter nowhere contains a promise of benefit or threat of reprisal . Further, the genesis for the holding of the meeting with Wilson came from employee Lefkel. Cox's letter was written in response to the request of two of the Company's employees. The Board held in the Cumberland Shoe Company case, 160 NLRB 1256, 1259, that the Company violated Section 8(a)(1) when its Vice President shepherded its employees through the process of drafting and mailing the withdrawal letters and then informed the employee that a copy of the letter would be kept in his personnel file. Inherent in this situation was the influence exerted by the Vice President upon such employees to complete the process of withdrawing from the Union which interfered with the rights of the employees not to do so if, at any point, they chose not to complete the process. The facts of record do not establish the above elements contained in the Cumberland case. The Board has found illegal assistance and employer interference in situations where a company mails such letters; furnishes envelopes, paper and postage for mailing; keeps copies of the letters ; summons its' employees to the office and requests them to sign letters prepared by the employer. Respondent did not engage in such action. Therefore, absent the type of assistance indicated above and absent promises of benefit or threats of reprisal I find that Respondent's letter of July 24 was not violative of the Act and it is recommended that this allegation in the complaint be dismissed. 6. Allegation of 8(a)(3) Respondent stipulated that it wrote a number of letters to the employees expressing its opposition to the Union. The General Counsel contends Jansen was discharged because she was known to be a union adherent and Respondent intended to make an example of her and thus coerce her and other employees to refrain from union activity. The timing and suddenness of Jansen's discharge creates the suspicion that antiunion considerations provided the Respondent's underlying motive for her discharge. The difficulty with this contention is that suspicion is not enough to support the 8(a)(3) allegation. It is significant to point out that 21 employees were listed as being members of the union organizing committee. Employee Waldrop was prominently included in this group along with some of the other employees who testified for the General Counsel, It is not disputed that Waldrop was active in the union campaign and worked 5. Letter concerning withdrawal from the Union The company president, Cox, on July 25, sent each employee a letter explaining that it had received a request from two employees asking how they could revoke their union authorization cards and remove themselves from the organizing committee .' In response to this request the 'The record shows 'that an employee named Harry Lefkel offered to bring another employee, Judy Carlos, to Superintendent Wilson's office to help her cancel her union membership and remove her name from the union organizing committee , as he had done She accepted his offer and accompanied Lefkel to Wilson's office, where she added her name to Lefkel's previously signed statement . Wilson told them that this Statement would be posted in the plant. The record is silent as to who prepared the document or what happened to it. KDI PRECISION PRODUCTS, INC. 139 with Jansen to further this purpose . Jansen was the only employee out of these 21 employees to be discharged. Carson was suspended and she was not a member of the Union or its committee. Thus, the General Counsel did not sustain his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Jansen was discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. It is therefore recommended that this allegation of the complaint be dismissed. Respondent apparently concluded that not only did Jansen intend to "sit in" but by so doing this single individual would thereby set in motion an employee movement to seize the plant. First, this alleged reason for discharging Jansen is so implausible as to be unbelievable. Second, no such event occurred . In N. L. R. B. v. Burnup and Sims, Inc., 379 U.S. 21, the employer believed that two employees threatened to blow up his property and they were discharged. The Supreme Court held that the discharges in these circumstances violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, concurring in the well settled holdings of the Board that regardless of an employer's motive , Section 8(a)(1) "is violated if an employee is discharged for misconduct arising out of protected activity , despite the employer's good faith, when it is shown that the misconduct never occurred ." 379 U.S. 23. It seems clear that Jansen was discharged as punishment for threatening to engage in activities protected by the Act, thus setting an example to discourage other employees from engaging in such action. Accordingly, I conclude that Respondent's discharge of Jansen violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above occurring in connection with its operations described in section 1, above , have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade , traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(axl) of the Act, I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. As I have found that Respondent violated the Act by discharging Rebecca Jansen on July 19, 1968, I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to offer her immediate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority and other rights and privileges , and make her whole for any loss of earnings she may have suffered by reason of her discharge by payment to her of a sum of money equal to the amount which she normally would have earned as wages from July 19, 1968, to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less her earnings, to which is to be added interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum, in accordance with the formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. I shall also recommend that Respondent rescind the 3-day suspension of Mary Carson, remove from her personnel record any references thereto , and make her whole for the loss of earnings she suffered by reason of her suspension. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent, KDI Precision Products , Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By interfering with employee rights to engage in protected concerted activities, by discharging employee Rebecca Jansen and suspending employee Mary Carson as found above, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. Respondent has not unlawfully solicited or assisted its employees in their efforts to cancel their Union cards and withdraw from the union organizing committee. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby recommended that Respondent, KDI Precision Products, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging or suspending employees under circumstances which interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to engage in concerted activities. (b) Confiscating petitions of employees which relate to improving working conditions or other mutual aid or protection. (c) Interrogating employees about their concerted activities regarding petitions which relate to improving working conditions or other mutual aid or protection. (d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, coercing, or discouraging employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Rebecca Jansen immediate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed and make her whole for any loss she may have suffered by reason of her discharge in the manner set forth in the section of the above decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Rescind the 3-day suspension of Mary Carson, remove from her personnel record any references thereto and make her whole for the loss of earnings suffered by reason of her suspension in the manner set forth in this section of the above decision entitled "The Remedy." (c) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment I records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records relevant and necessary to a determination of compliance with paragraphs 2(a) and (b) above. 140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL (d) Post at its Cincinnati, Ohio, place of business, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 9, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by it 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 the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.' IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed with respect to allegations of unfair labor practices not herein found to have been committed. 'In the event 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 the United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals 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 National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: After a trial at which all sides had the chance to give evidence, it was found that we, KDI Precision Products, Inc., violated the National Labor Relations Act, and we were ordered to post this notice to inform our employees of their rights. The Act gives all employees these rights: To organize themselves To form, join, or help unions To bargain as a group through a representative they choose To act together for collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection To refuse to do any or all of these things We have also been ordered to assure our employees that: LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with these rights. WE WILL offer Rebecca Jansen immediate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges and we will make her whole for any loss she may have suffered as a result of her discharge. WE WILL rescind the 3-day suspension of Mary Carson, remove from her personnel record any references thereto and make her whole for the loss of earnings she suffered by reason of her suspension. WE WILL NOT discharge or suspend employees under circumstances which interfere with , restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to engage in concerted activities. WE WILL NOT confiscate petitions of employees which relate to improved working conditions or other mutual aid or protection. WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees about their concerted activities regarding petitions wiich relate to improved working conditions or other mutual aid or protection. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization , to form labor organizations, to join or assist International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in any other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. You are all free to engage in concerted activity for your mutual aid or protection so long as you do not violate lawful regulations of the Company. Dated By KDI PRECISION PRODUCTS, INC. (Employer) (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 directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Room 2407, Federal Office Building, 550 Main Street, Ciaeintati, Ohio 45202, Telephone No. 513-684-3686.