Standard Pressed Steel Co.

STANDARD PRESSED STEEL CO. Standard Pressed Steel Co., IFD , The Cleveland Cap Screw Company and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW. Case 8-CA-5165 May 27, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA On March 25 , 1969, Trial Examiner Benjamin A. Theeman issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding , finding that- the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner 's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in support thereof. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed . The rulings are hereby affirmed . The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner , as modified below.' ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as amended , and hereby orders that the Respondent, Standard Pressed Steel Co., IFD , The Cleveland Cap Screw Company, Cleveland , Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner 's Recommended Order, as herein modified: Delete the words "like or related " from the first line in the third indented paragraph of the Appendix , and substitute the word "other." 'As noted by the Respondent , the Trial Examiner erred in assigning 1967 as the effective date of the Respondent's no-distribution rule. 1957 should be substituted for 1967. This does not affect our decision herein. 'The Respondent has requested oral argument . This request is hereby denied as the record, the exceptions, and the brief adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE 175 BENJAMIN A. THEEMAN , Trial Examiner : The complaint alleges that Respondent, Standard Pressed Steel Co., IFD, The Cleveland Cap Screw Company, had engaged and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3 ) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et seq. seq. (the Act) by (a) putting into effect a rule prohibiting the distribution of any type of literature on Respondent's premises except that originated within Respondent and approved by its personnel department and (b) suspending Sterling P. Newberry III because he had joined, assisted or favored a union and had distributed union literature at the plant in violation of the aforesaid rule. Respondent denies the commission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before me in Cleveland, Ohio, on November 25, 1968 . The General Counsel and Respondent appeared by counsel . They were given full opportunity to participate, adduce evidence, and examine and cross-examine witnesses. The General Counsel and Respondent argued orally at the close of the hearing. Respondent filed a brief. The arguments and the brief have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent is, and at all times material herein, a Pennsylvania corporation, with a plant located in Cleveland, Ohio, where it is engaged in the manufacture and production of industrial fasteners . Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business, annually ships products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the State of Ohio. In accord with the foregoing, it is found that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW (the Unioa) is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.' III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issues In 1957 Respondent placed in effect a no-distribution rule affecting its entire premises . On September 25, 1968, Newberry was suspended for 2 weeks without pay for violating this rule. The issues are whether (1) the maintenance and enforcement of the no-distribution rule was violative of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act; and (2) the suspension of Newberry was violative of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 'The charge and amended charge upon which the complaint issued were filed by the Union . The Union was not present at the hearing. 176 NLRB No. 26 176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD B. Background and General Information Effective December 5, 1967, the Respondent issued the following procedural regulation , entitled DISTRIBUTION OF LITERATURE ON COMPANY PROPERTY AND THE USE OF COMPANY BULLETIN BOARDS The regulation provided: The Company wishes to keep employees informed of all happenings concerning matters relating to employment at The Cleveland Cap Screw Company. This is accomplished by several means of communication with the employees. The Cleveland Cap Screw Company uses the following methods of communication: 1. Bulletin Board Notices 2. Letters to the homes of employees 3. Employee and supervisory meetings 4. SPS News and The Link (Company House Organs) 5. Employee counselling 6. Announcements on public address system. In order to eliminate any errors in communicating, the distribution of any type of literature on Company premises will not be permitted except that which originates within the Company and only then with the approval of the Personnel Department. Bulletin boards are located throughout the plant and office as another means of keeping the employees informed. Employees are not permitted to post anything on the bulletin boards or elsewhere in the plant without first obtaining permission from the Personnel Department. Employees are also prohibited from removing or defacing anything that has been posted. The Respondent issued its no-distribution rule in its own best interests. Through its use, Respondent intended to exercise control over the communications among the employees to prevent the spread of the wrong type of information . Also the rule was intended to prevent chaos in the use of bulletin board space. No employee or other person ever sought permission from the Company to distribute literature on the company premises. As indicated in the rule, Respondent has published and distributed company publications among its employees. One of them was entitled "The Link ZD Security." The company plant in Cleveland has a front and back entrance. It has no fences or gates . During September 1968, the rear entrance was closed because of repairs. Employees enter the company building on the ground floor where the locker rooms are located and where they punch the timeclocks. No production occurs on the ground floor. Production occurs on the upper floors. The workday of the Company begins at 7 a.m. For a number of years the Union attempted to organize the Company . A representation election was held on February 24, 1967, which the Union lost. Since then the employees have not been represented by a union . Within the past 2 years the Union on 35 /40 occasions has distributed handouts at the front and back entrances to the plant. Employees have participated in the distributions. The record contains no evidence of any friction between the Company and the Union or the employees because of these distributions.' C. Newberry and the Selective Service Newberry was employed by the Respondent in October 1967. His foreman was Frank D'Vorak. Several weeks before September 25, 1968, Newberry had received a notice to appear at the Selective Service. In connection with such appearances, the Company had a rule providing that it would allow an employee l day's leave with pay. Newberry understood that "the law of the land states" that a person could be held at the induction center 3 days. Under these circumstances, Newberry considered the company rule was "unfair." He believed that the Company should pay the employee for his absence up to 3 days "since it wasn't the employee's fault." He spoke to D'Vorak about his feelings and was referred to Mr. Willett, . the manager of Employee Relations. Willett told him that 1 day's pay was the company rule; that hundreds of employees have been so paid without objection. Newberry again urged it was unfair. Willett pointed out there were a lot of other company rules that employees might disagree with but still they were required to abide by them. Newberry stated that he had the right to question the rules. Willett told Newberry that whether he liked it or not the Company was going to adhere to the 1-day rule. D. Newberry Distributes a Pamphlet and its Consequences On September 25, 1968, about 6:30 a.m., Newberry stood in front of the timeclocks on the ground floor of the Company plant and passed out a one-page leaflet to the employees as they punched in. The leaflet had been prepared by Newberry. In part it referred back to the earlier conversation with Willett. Newberry also felt that the right of employees to question a company rule "was a subject for discussion among employees." The leaflet read as follows: WHAT'S IT ALL ABOUT??? The latest issue of "The Link" said that people in the finishing dept. got ZD awards because Frank D'Vorak is such a good foreman, and people will "do anything" for a good foreman. How do we know? "Just ask anyone in the finishing dept." says "The Link." Personally, I don't remember hearing about any poll being taken of the working people in this shop. So why does "The Link" (our favorite company newsletter) claim that we all love and adore our foreman without asking us? Because it is the bosses' paper, and the boss never really listens to our opinions . He would rather tell us what our opinion is.' Harry Willett perfectly expressed the Company's feelings toward its employees just yesterday afternoon. When I asked him about the reason behind a company rule, he told me there was no reason - it's just a rule. "It doesn't matter if the rule is right or wrong, it's the rule," was good old Harry's remark. After all, why should the master consult the slave? Why should the dictator consider the feeling of his 'Several charges were filed against the Company which did not reach the complaint stage. 'It is inferred that the first two paragraphs of this leaflet refer to Issue No. 25 of "The Link" dated September 20, 1968 . Therein was an article stating that Frank D'Vorak is a good foreman and his employees "will do almost anything to please " him. Further, it went on to state that the group D'Vorak supervised had won the Outstanding Award for the month of August. STANDARD PRESSED STEEL CO. 177 subjects? The answer is that he won't, unless it will make him a profit. Which brings us to what it's all about. The only reason the company hands out its little "gifts" like "The Link", ZD awards, and other crap is that it thinks that will keep us from demanding what is really ours - I. decent pay so we won't have, to work overtime to make a living. 2. Job security, freedom from arbitrary company policies. 3. Better hospitalization, more vacation 4. Most important - DEMOCRACY-- the right to have a say in the decisions that affect us Working people have learned that no one ever "gives" us anything! We have to Organize and Fight for it. Don't listen to any bull about what the Union will or won't do for us. WE are the Union and we must do for ourselves. Remember , every "Link" the company puts over on us just strengthens the chain around our necks. Dig it? Sterling Newberry Call or write the U.A.W. organizational office Sign a card today. 917 E. 222 St. 731 - 5488 Labor donated He continued the distribution until shortly before 7 a.m. No doubt with the intention of helping distribution, he erroneously referred to the leaflet as the ZD or the "New ZD."' At 7 he punched in and went upstairs to his work bench. Before doing so, he placed a bunch of the leaflets on a table in front of the timeclock where the Company leaves its literature. At his work bench he put a number of the leaflets alongside his lunch box on the work bench. The record does not show what happened to these two bunches of leaflets.' The remainder of the leaflets he placed in his locker. About 4 p.m. that day, D'Vorak asked Newberry to come with him to Willett's office. A fourth person Bud Wolf, a general foreman for the Company was also present. Wolf told Newberry that because he had handed out the leaflet in the plant he was suspended for 2 weeks. Willett stated the reasons: (1) the leaflet had disrupted the normal operation of the plant; (2) it contained malicious statements about the Company; and (3) there was a company rule about passing leaflets out. Newberry was out of work for 2 weeks and received no pay for the period. After his return , he worked an additional week and then left voluntarily. No doubt in an effort to induce the employees to take the leaflet. The Company brought out this fact but does not claim that the misrepresentation was a cause for the suspension. 'On cross-examination Newberry testified: Q. And isn't it also true that you left a supply in the corner of your table or desk? A. I left it with my lunch box. Q. Why were they with the lunch box? A. Because that was my property. Q. They were not in it. A. No. Q. Did anybody come over and pick them up? A. I wouldn't know. E. Company Practice Under the Rule and Newberry's Knowledge Since 1957, Respondent has been consistent in enforcing the nondistribution rule. No employee or other person ever sought permission from the Company to distribute literature on Company premises. Newberry was the first employee to do so. Newberry neither sought nor obtained Company permission to distribute the leaflet. Newberry had never heard of the company rule against distribution, had never seen a book of rules, and had never seen such a rule posted on a bulletin board. During the time he was employed he had known of no distribution of literature other than "The Link" and other company literature and the pamphlets distributed by the Union at the plant entrances.' F. Newberry's Union Activity Newberry was a member of the Union and attended union meetings . While working he wore a union button and for the last 2 months of his employment wore a union arm band. Starting with March 1968, he actively solicited union membership among the employees and passed out authorization cards in the locker room, outside the plant and at the machines durmg lunchtime. This was in accord with union instructions on this subject. Analysis and Conclusions 1. The Company's no-distribution rule is violative of Section 8(a)(1) There is no doubt that the Company' s rule, quoted in full above, prohibits employees from distributing literature in nonworking areas on nonworking time without first receiving company approval.' It is now well established by the Board and the Courts that the existence of such a rule, absent a showing of necessity, is in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.' As to the rule, the Company makes no showing either of necessity or special circumstances. It states that the rule was issued in its own best interests and to control communications among the employees.' The first reason, absent details, is considered neither a showing of necessity 'Newberry testified to two instances of solicitation on the work floor during working hours once for flowers for an employee's deceased wife; and another time, for money for a gift for a retiring employee. The record contains no evidence of disciplinary action by the Company with regard to these instances In any event , oral solicitation is a separate issue not material to the present case See Stoddard-Quirk Manufacturing Co., 138 NLRB 615, 616. 'Reasonably, the rule may be further interpreted to forbid the distribution of any employee literature . The third paragraph of the rule permits the distribution of literature "which originates within the Company." In the rule the word "Company" is constantly used so as to distinguish it from, and to the exclusion of, "employees." For example the opening sentence contains the statement "The Company wishes to keep employees informed . ." The last two paragraphs refer specifically to "employees" and lays down prohibitions directed specifically at employees in relation to bulletin board posting. 'Cone Mills Corporation , White Oak Plant, 174 NLRB No. 151, SNC Manufacturing Co., Inc, 174 NLRB No. 31; Accurate Products, Inc., 170 NLRB No. 173; Taylor Instrument Co.. 165 NLRB No. 83; Stoddard Quirk Manufacturing Co., 138 NLRB 615; N.L.R.B. v. Mid States Metal Products. Inc.. 403 F.2d 702 (C A. 5), Winchester Spinning Corporation v N L.R.B., 402 F.2d 299 (C.A. 4X N.L R B. v. General Industries Electronics Company. 401 F.2d 297 (C.A. 8), and cases cited and discussions held in each one. 'The third reason stated- to prevent chaos in the use of the bulletin 178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD nor a special circumstance . The second reason is precisely what constitutes a violation of the Act in that nonwork time and nonwork areas are included in the areas kept under company control. 2. The leaflet is part of the union organizing effort Respondent in its brief contends that the leaflet was the product and concern of Newberry exclusively, and not a union activity; that Newberry acted for himself alone and the only motivation for the leaflet was Willett's refusal to change company policy dealing with Selective Service. The record does show that the leaflet is Newberry's creation, and as Newberry admitted does refer back to the conversation about Willett concerning pay for Selective Service absences. But the leaflet as distributed does not present a personal issue . As counsel for the Respondent admitted, "it is well written." In that respect, a perusal of the leaflet shows the author has deaccented the Selective Service issue and emphasized and accented what he considered an arbitrary action of the Company with respect to its rules . In addition, the leaflet set forth a number of other items that affected working conditions; and presented several reasons why the employees should join the UAW. The leaflet ends with the admonition that the employee "Call or write the UAW organization office . Sign a card today." The leaflet leaves little doubt in the reader that it solicits union membership or that it pertains to union organization . The Union did not disown the leaflet but as Respondent 's counsel points out gave it its belated blessing when it filed the charges herein. Accordingly, it is found that the leaflet contains efforts dealing with union organization of the employees of the Company. Such an effort is protected by Section 7 of the Act.' ° 3. Respondent's reasons for suspending Newberry are invalid Newberry was suspended because he handed out the leaflet. As stated above, the reasons for the suspension are: (a) he thereby disrupted the normal operation of the plant; (b) the leaflet contained malicious statements about the Company; and (c) the distribution violated the company rule against distribution on company premises. None of the above-stated reasons have any validity. a. The leaflet did not disrupt normal operations The record is bare of any evidence to show that Newberry's actions caused any disruption of the operations of the Company. The bundle of leaflets left on Newberry's work bench could have been available to board, in all probability refers to the last two paragraphs of the rule rather than to distribution of literature . Absent an allegation that the rule as to the bulletin boards is violative of the Act and absent information concerning the whereabouts of the bulletin boards and the use made of them, no finding is made in relation to this portion of the rule. It is suggested that in its future rule dealing with the use of bulletin boards, the Company will consider the holdings of the Board and the Court in Winchester Spinning Corporation. 168 NLRB No. 60, enfd . 402 F.2d 299 (C.A. 4). "In any event, it has been held that a single employee was engaged in concerted activities when single handedly he circulated a petition in a matter related to employee working conditions . See Salt River Valley Water Users ' Association v. N.L.R. B.. 206 F.2d 325 (C.A. 9), enfg. 99 NLRB 849. employees during working hours. If so, a possibility exists that some littering or work interruption could have resulted. But the record contains nothing to show nor does Respondent allege that either event occurred. The bare fact that the leaflets were on Newberry's work bench during working hours is insufficient to be the basis for an inference that the leaflets were picked up by employees; Newberry made an effort to induce employees to pick one up; or that Newberry distributed any during working time. The record clearly shows that Newberry distributed the leaflets before the timeclocks during nonworking time in a nonworking area. In doing so, Newberry did no more than the Company did. The Company admits that "The Link" is distributed in front of the timeclocks and copies are left on the same table in front of the timeclocks on which Newberry left his leaflet. b. The leaflet contained no malicious statements about the Company The leaflet is quoted in full above. In some cases, the language is "strong" and perhaps not in the best taste. But the Board and Court decisions are loaded with instances of rough, indecent and impolite words in Union-Management Relations. The Company does not specify what portion of the leaflet it considers malicious but makes the broad statement that it was malicious. Examination of the leaflet shows nothing contained therein that is prejudicial or injurious so that it may be deemed malicious." It has already been found that the leaflet was an effort at union organization. The Act clearly states that union organization is in the public interest and is protected. c. A violation of an invalid rule is not a suspension for cause As shown above, the company rule is violative of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. It follows that Newberry's suspension based on a violation of such an invalid rule could not be a suspension for cause under the Act. 4. Respondent's reliance on the Shawnee Industries case is misplaced The record shows that Respondent for the past several years had had amicable relations with the Union and that the Union without protest or friction has been freely distributing literature at the entrances to the plant. It also shows that heretofore no employee had been disciplined for violation of the no-distribution rule; the rule had been neither applied or enforced ; and that neither the Union nor any employee complained about the existence of the rule. In view of these facts Respondent alleges that the employees have not been cut off from those who wish to organize them and therefore the company rule is not in violation of the Act. They refer to N.L.R.B. v. Shawnee Industries, 333 F.2d 221 (C.A. 10),1= and state that such permission to (solicit or) distribute was neither asked or desired. Therefore Respondent contends no violation "Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, West Publishing Co., 1957, defines the word as follows: Malicious - characterized by or involving malice, having, or done with, wicked or mischievious intentions or motives, wrongful and done intentionally without just cause or excuse. See also American Juriprudence . 34 p 631 section on malice "Quote from Respondent's brief not from the Court decision: STANDARD PRESSED STEEL CO. 179 occurred. This contention is inapplicable here. As found above, the Board, with the Court's approval (see fn. 7) has consistently held that the existence of a broad distribution rule requiring prior approval of the Company for distribution of union (or any) literature on company premises and time without specifying that the distribution is restricted to working time and in working areas or without a showing of special circumstances, constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(I) of the Act. In addition, the Company admittedly suspended Newberry for distributing union literature on noncompany time and in a nonworking area in violation of this invalid rule. Under such circumstances, the Tenth Circuit referring to and differentiating the Shawnee Industries case found the broad no-distribution rule violative of Section 8(a)(1) and a discharge under it violative of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. The Court in N.L.R.B. v. American Coach Co., 379 F.2d 699, pointed out that there was no showing of special circumstances which justified the application of a no-distribution rule; that an employee had been discharged for making derogatory remarks about the rule and for passing out authorization cards during the lunch hour. One of the reasons for the discharge was the breach of the no-distribution rule. At page 701, the Tenth Circuit stated: In National Labor Relations Board v. Shawnee Industries, Inc., 10 Cir., 333 F.2d 221, 225, 56 LRRM 2567, we held that the adoption of a no-solicitation, no-distribution rule was not of itself a violation of Sec. 8(a)(1). In that situation there was not only a special circumstance, solicitation of contributions, but also "no evidence that the rules were ever used to interfere with any union or any organizational activities." Here we have no special circumstance, but we do have the use of the rules to interfere with the protected activities of the employees during non-working time in non-working areas. The protected activities involved here were union solicitation and the distribution of union authorization cards. In our opinion , the record establishes interference with the rights granted by Sec. 71 and sustains the Board's holding that the Company violated Sec. 8(a)(1). . . .Both the solicitation and distribution were to encourage the unionization of the plant - a permissible activity in the circumstances presented. When the record is viewed as a whole it supports the reasonable inference that the discharge resulted from union activities. Such a discriminatory discharge violates Sec. 8(a)(3). 5. Respondent's no-distribution rule and the suspension of Newberry for violating it are violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act In accord with the foregoing and on the record as a whole, it is found that the no-distribution rule of the Company maintained and enforced at the plant is in violation of Section 8(a)(l). It is further found that the suspension of Newberry for the distribution of union literature on nonworking time in a nonworking area was "Mere promulgation of plant rules to bar employees from vending, . and from distributing written or printed matter of any description on plant premises unless approved by Management cannot support finding of ULP in absence of evidence that any employee requested and was denied approval to solicit support for a labor union." (Emphasis supplied.) '29 U.S.C. Sec. 157. improper in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Standard Pressed Steel Co., IFD, The Cleveland Cap Screw Company, is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By maintaining and enforcing its no-distribution rule as set forth in its procedural regulation dated December 5, 1967, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. 4. By discriminatorily suspending Sterling P. Newberry, III, on September 25, 1968, for a period of 2 weeks without pay because of his union or concerted activities, as found above, the Company has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7, and engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. W. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent, set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the business operations set forth in section I, 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 such commerce and the free flow thereof. V. THE REMEDY In view of the findings set forth above that the Company has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act, it will be recommended that it be required to cease and desist therefrom and take such affirmative action as appears necessary and appropriate to effectuate the policies of the Act. In view of the finding that the Company suspended employee Newberry for a period of 2 weeks without pay because of his activities on behalf of the Union it will be recommended that it be required to make him whole for loss of earnings during the period of suspension with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum." Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law and the entire record and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following: "Newberry voluntarily left the employ of the Company a week after his return to work A reinstatement order is not appropriate. 180 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD RECOMMENDED ORDER Standard Pressed Steel Co., IFD, The Cleveland Cap Screw Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Maintaining and enforcing rules prohibiting distribution of union literature or other materials, or soliciting union membership, or engaging in other protected union or concerted activities on employees' own time in nonworking areas of company property. (b) Discouraging membership in or activity on behalf of International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, or any other labor organization by discharging , suspending or otherwise discriminating against employees with respect to hire, tenure, or any term or condition of employment. (c) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or co ercing employees in their exercise of the rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action: (a) Make Sterling P. Newberry, III, whole in the manner set forth in the section of this decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports , and all other records necessary to analyze and give effect to the backpay requirements hereof. (c) Post at its Cleveland, Ohio, plant a copy of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Board's Regional Director for Region 8, shall , after being duly signed by the Company's authorized representative , be posted by the Company immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained thereafter for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Company to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in writing, within 20 days from receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply with the terms hereof." "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. If the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of the United States Court of Appeals, the notice will be further amended by the substitution of the words "a decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" 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 the Regional Director for Region 8, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." Dated By 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: WE WILL NOT discourage membership of our employees in International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, or in any other labor organization, by discriminating in any manner in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of any terms or condition of employment of our employees, except as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. WE WILL NOT maintain or enforce any rules prohibiting distribution of union literature or other materials or solicitation of union membership on company property on employees' own time and in nonworking areas. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist, the above-named union , or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of 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 requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, in conformity to Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. WE WILL ensure that Sterling P. Newberry, III, is made whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him. All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining , members of the above-named labor organization or any other labor organization. STANDARD PRESSED STEEL CO., IFD, APPENDIX THE CLEVELAND CAP SCREW COMPANY (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, 1695 Federal Office Building, 1240 East Ninth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44199, Telephone 513-522-3738.