Gladding Corp.

GLADDING KEYSTONE CORP. Cladding Keystone Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Gladding Corporation' and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. Case 3-CA-3666 September 16, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER By MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS On June 5. 1969, Trial Examiner William 's. Kapell issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent has engaged in and is 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. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent did not engage in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended that such allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, 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 finds merit in certain exceptions of the Respondent. Accordingly. the Board hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein. 1. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, as alleged in the complaint, on several occasions, by interrogating employees concerning union matters and by threatening to discharge an employee because of his union membership or activities. 2. For the reasons detailed hereafter, we do not adopt the Trial Examiner's additional findings that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) in two other respects, or his conclusion that Respondent's refusal to transfer employee Seward was discriminatorily motivated and an additional violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. The Trial Examiner found that President O'Neil's disclosure to employee Zeidner of plans for increased economic benefits for employees was for the purpose of undermining support for the Union, and that supervisor Svatek's warning to employee Seward that his union activities could get him fired The name of the Respondent appears in the caption as amended at the hearing 415 each constituted separate violations of Section 8(a)(l). However, neither act was alleged in the complaint as a violation, nor did the General Counsel amend the complaint at the hearing to allege such conduct as violative of the Act. Moreover, as to President O'Neil's disclosure on pending employee benefits, it does not appear that such issue was fully litigated.' The record also establishes that the testimony as to supervisor Svatek (who did not testify) was admitted for the limited purpose of establishing Respondent's knowledge of Seward's union activity. In these circumstances, we conclude a finding of a violation as to either incident is not warranted. While we agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent discriminatorily discharged employee Seward in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, we do not agree with his further finding that the refusal to transfer Seward to another job constituted an additional violation of Section 8(a)(3) Apart from the fact that Respondent's failure to transfer Seward to another job was a factor in determining that his discharge was discriminatory, such conduct was not alleged as an additional violation in the complaint and the complaint was not amended during the hearing We shall, therefore. modify the Trial Examiner's Conclusions of Law, Order. and notice accordingly. 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 and hereby orders that Respondent, Cladding Keystone Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Gladding Corporation, Oneonta, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as so modified. 1. Delete from Conclusion of Law 3 the words "proposing tentative employee salary increases to influence the employees against the Union,". 2. Delete the phrase "proposing salary increases to employees to influence them against the Union," from paragraph 1(a) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, and delete from the Appendix the paragraph containing a similar reference to tentative wage increases. 'See Grafton Boat Co , Inc, 173 NLRB No 1 50 TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STA FEMENT OF 1 [IF CASF' WILLIAM W. Kart.[ L, Trial Examiner: Case 3-CA-3666, a proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act, was heard in Oneonta. New York, on March 26 and 27, 1969, The name of Respondent appears in the caption as amended at the hearing 178 NLRBNo 66 416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD with all parties participating pursuant to notice on a complaint' issued on January 31, 1969, by the Regional Director for Region 3 of the National Labor Relations Board. hereafter called the Board. alleging violations of Section 8(a)( 1) and (3) by Gladding Keystone Corporation. a wholly owned subsidiary of Gladdmg Corporation, hereafter called the Respondent. The complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleges, in substance, that Respondent interrogated employees concerning their union membership and activities. impliedly created an impression of surveillance of their union or concerted activities, threatened them with discharge if they joined of supported the Union. conditioned reemployment of an employee upon the signing of a statement that he would abstain from filing unfair labor practice charges. and discriminatorily discharged and refused to reinstate and reemploy Aaron Seward, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. In its duly filed answer, as amended at the hearing. Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor practices and the agency or supervisory status of Eugene Heller. Joseph Cilbertt, and Richard Svatek All parties were accorded full opportunity to be heard. to introduce relevant evidence. to present oral argument. and to file briefs Respondent and the General Counsel tiled briefs which have been duly considered. On the entire record in the case,' and from my observation of the witnesses, l snake the following- FINDINGS OF FAC I III Ti1E Al LEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. /'he Disputed Supervisory Status The complaint alleges that at all times material herein eight named individuals were agents or supervisor,, of Respondent within the meaning of the Act, and were involved in specified violative conduct. In it,, answer Respondent denied the supervisory status of three of them: namely, Gene Heller, Joseph Cllberti, and Richard Svatek. It, accordingly, becomes necessary to determine their status in attributing their conduct to Respondent I Gene Heller Heller was employed by Respondent from l ebruary to November 1968. Ile was hired as a supervisor in' the stockroom through a newspaper ad calling for a supervisor He testified without contradiction that in the course of his work he supervised from 2 to 10 employees, interviewed prospective employees, effectively ay raises, discharged recommended their hiring and pa,,' employees, assigned work to employees, granted time off to them, attended supervisor's meetings, and was paid $2 70 an hour compared to $1.80 an hour, the highest pay received by one of the employees under his supervision. It clearly appears. and I find, that Heller was vested with sufficient authority in the performance of his duties to qualify him as a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(1 1) of the Act 1. COMMFRCI At all times material herein, Respondent has maintained its principal office and place of business in the city of Oneonta. New York, and has been engaged at said plant in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of electrical components and related parts. During the past year. in the course and conduct of its business operations, Respondent purchased, transferred, and delivered to its Oneonta plant, goods and material valued in excess of 550,000, of which goods and material valued in excess of S50.000 were transported to said plant directly from States of the United States other than the State of New York. During the same year Respondent sold and distributed at said plant. products valued in excess of 550,000, of which products valued in excess of S50.000 were shipped from said plant directly to States in the United States other than the State of New York. Respondent admits, and I find, that at all trines material herein. it has been engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 11 THE LABOR ORGANIZAIiON iNVOI VLI) Respondent admits, and I (Ind. that at all times material herein, the Union has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the ALt 'Based on a charge filed on December 23, 1968. by International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. hereafter referred to as the Union All dates hereafter refer to the year 1968 unless otherwise noted 'During the hearing , General Counsels unopposed motions were granted to strike the names of Merman Leidner and Shirley Zeidner from pars 6 and 7 of the complaint as having been discnmmatonly discharged and refused reinstatement, and to dismiss par 5((,) of the complaint relating to John Ross' alleged violative conduct Respondent' s motions to dismiss specific allegations of the complaint , on which rulin4 was reserved at the hearing, are disposed of on the basis of the findings and conclusions made herein 2. Joseph Cilberti Cilberti a retired railway employee, was hired by Respondent in 1966 According to O'Neil, Respondent's president, Cilbertt worked in the quality control department as a calibration technician whose prime responsibility was to calibrate the measuring devices used In periodically testing magnetic components and transformers and keeping a record of his calibrations. O'Neil testified further that Cilbertt is supervised by Quality Control Manager Robert Bligh, and has no authority to hire, lire, or to effectively recommend such action, that his work was a combination of technical and clerical functions, and that he worked alone except when he was training Aaron Seward following the latter's transfer to his division Robert Bligh, the quality control manager, corroborated O'Neil's testimony to the effect that Cilberti was not a foreman and did not hire. fire, or effectively recommend hiring or firing. Cilberti testified that he is the calibration technician. repairing. adjusting, and keeping records of any discrepancies in the testing devices, and that he never fired or hired an employee or recommended such action.' The only testimony in support of Cilbcrti's status as a supervisor was given by Seward who stated that following his transfer from production and maintenance to work as an apprentice electrical technician in the quality control department under Cilberti, Cilbertt assigned work to him while he was a trainee in that department, and was his foreman. I find that Cilberti was a skilled technician who was training Seward as an apprentice, and in the course of that training supervised him primarily for instruction purposes 1 find and conclude that Cilberti was not vested with supervisory In attacking Cilberti's credibility , the General Counsel introduced in evidence a recommendanon he gave to Seward in applying for a job elsewhere, which he signed with the title of foreman I attach slight weight to this self-serving document GLADDING KEYSTONE CORP. 417 authority within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act Accordingly , his activities as a supervisor are not attributable to Respondent. qualify him as a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, whose actions in that capacity are attributable to Respondent. B. The Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(1) 3. Richard Svatek O'Neil testified that Svatek had no authority to fire or effectively recommend hiring or firing.that he was not in production and maintenance and that he was a technical assistant to the quality control manager. performing technical and clerical paperwork duties. Bligh also testified that Svatek was not a foreman, had no authority to hire or fire, and was a quality control engineer in the quality control department Seward in his testimony referred to Svatek as an assistant supervisor. Pursuant to the unopposed request of General Counsel, official notice was taken herein of the following stipulation appearing on page 71 of the transcript of a hearing held in a related Board representation proceeding held on August 26 involving the Union and Respondent.' Can we have a stipulation that the foremen are managers , Keehan, Shroder, Depew. Ross. Bligh, Svatek and Fuller are supervisory as defined in the Act and they do have the authority to recommend disciplinary action or action against employees in their work and should be excluded from the unit and held ineligible to vote in any election that might be directed? Mr Price (representing the Respondent): So stipulated Mr. Kane (representing the Union)- So stipulated. Mr. Fugerson (representing the Respondent): So stipulated. Respondent made no attempt to disavow or repudiate the foregoing stipulation but claimed that the testimony of O'Neil, which preceded the stipulation, should be considered in conjunction with and in explanation of it. This testimony, of which official notice was also taken, appears on pages 66 and 70 as follows: Q. And Quality Control, how about that'? A. Quality Control is not broken up into jobs at this point. Q. All operations are under one supervisor? A. Right. With an assistant Q. Who is the assistant') A Svatek. Q. And how about in Quality Control? Mr. Bligh is the general foreman and Mr. Svatek is the assistant A. Mr Bligh is the quality control manager and there are no group leaders set up in that department at this point. I find that O'Neil's testimony in the representation hearing was not inconsistent with the stipulation, nor did it refute or explain that Svatek was not vested with authority to recommend disciplinary action or action against employees in their work. Bligh was described as general foreman in O'Neil's testimony and in the instant hearing he testified that he was quality control manager. Regardless of Bligh's title, which apparently was quite high in the hierarchy of management, I find considering all the evidence, and in particular the overriding weight of the stipulation, that Svatek was a lower grade supervisor, but, nevertheless, sufficiently endowed with authority to 'In the Matter of Gladding Keystone Corporation and Aerospace Workers. AFL-CIO. Case 3-RC-4486 `Respondent claimed that the question mark appearing after "control" should appear at the end of the question Respondent conceded that it was aware of the Union's organizing campaign as early as July. Heller testified without contradiction that after signing a union card at the request of Seward during the summer, he had a conversation with O'Neil in which he was told to act like a supervisor, and that "We can't have the Union in here because the Company can't afford it." Following this conversation, Heller retrieved his union card from Seward, tore it up, told him he was not going to get involved with the Union, and that the Company knew something was going on about the Union and it they found out they probably would fire him (Seward). Seward testified without contradiction that on about July 13, Svatek told him that he had heard some bad reports about hint and said, "Well, you're the leader in organizing the Union in the plant I just want to warn you, you know you can get fired on account of this." Seward testified further that on the morning of July 15 Cilberti told him he had been called to O'Neil's office where O'Neil spoke to him about the union activity in the plant and mentioned that he knew Seward was involved in the Union as the leader. Cilberti then cautioned hint that inasmuch as they were friends he would hate to see him loose his lob because of the Union. Although Cilberti testified on behalf of Respondent, he did not deny Seward's testimony. Employee Herman Zeidner testified that on July 13 he was called to O'Neil's office where O'Neil told him that he had reportedly been seen handing out union cards, which was illegal and immoral When Zeidner stated that he was unaware of cards being signed on company time and asked what was immoral about it, O'Neil replied that they were stabbing the Company in the back. During this conversation O'Neil also showed him schedules of proposed wage increases and asked what he thought of them and the Union, to which Zeidner responded that the schedules looked good and that the Union was good both for the employees and the Company. According to O'Neil, he told Zeidner he had heard reports to the effect that he had been circulating petitions, that Zeidner denied doing it on company time and stated he was working for the Union which would be a good thing for both the Company and the employees, and that he (O'Neil) denied it would be beneficial to the Company but said that the choice was up to the employees. I find from their testimony that O'Neil initiated the conversation with Zeidner concerning the Union, that he revealed proposed wage increase scales for the employees, and inquired what Zeidner thought about theirs and the Union. CONCLUSIONS The Board has held that in interrogating or polling employees concerning their union support, employers must observe certain rules in maintaining a reasonable balance between the protection of employee rights and the legitimate interests of employers See Struksnes Construction Co., inc., 165 NLRB No 102, and cases cited therein ' Absent unusual circumstances, the interrogation or polling of employees is violative of 'Cf Bourne Co v N L.R B , 332 F 2d 47 (C A 2), cnfg. as modified l44 NLRB 805. 418 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Section 8(a)(I) of the Act unless the following safeguards are observed. The purpose of the interrogation or the poll is to determine the truth of a claim of majority and this purpose is communicated to the employees, assurances against reprisals are given, the employees are polled by secret ballot, and the employer is not engaged in unfair labor practices or has not otherwise created a coercive atmosphere Applying these standards to the instant case, it appears that O'Neil called Zeidner from his work station and interrogated him in his office as to how he felt about the Union, no assurances against reprisals were given, nor was any legitimate purpose served by the interrogation , and O'Neil clearly indicated his hostility to the Union. Under these circumstances, 1 conclude that Respondent unlawfully interrogated Zeidner in violation of Section 8(a)(I) of the Act. I find further, that while the union organizing campaign was in progress, O'Neil attempted to influence Zeidner against the Union by discussing proposed wage increases and displaying proposed pay schedules. In effect, O'Neil was publicizing a tentative offer of economic benefits to the employees for the purpose of adversely influencing their union support in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act N L R B. v Exchange Parts Company. 375 U.S. 405, 409. As appears above. Heller and Svatek each warned Seward that his union activities could get him fired Heller, as a result of his conversation with O'Neil. was under no illusions as to the danger involved in supporting the Union, and he quickly severed his connection with it and warned Seward. Svatek, apparently, was giving credence to common knowledge about Seward', union leadership. and warned him of possible consequences, albeit in a more formal manner than Heller Although neither one presumably threatened to fire him, they, nevertheless, made it clear that further participation in union activities jeopardized his continued employment. Moreover, Respondent had and could exercise thepowerto carry out the warning, and as appears infra the prediction materialized I find that the warnings given Seward interfered with the exercise of his statutory rights to engage in union activities and also coerced him within the meaning of and in violation of Section 8(a)(I) of the Act. 'V L R.B. v. Exchange Part.s Co , supra: International Union of Electrical. Radio and Machine Workers v. N L R B. 289 F.2d 757. 763 (C.A.D.C ) " C The Alleged Discriminatory Discharge of and Refusal to Reemploy Seward Seward was hired on April 22 to work in production and maintenance under the supervison of Foreman John Ross. lie did some electrical work, operated a punch press, an automatic blender, and a cutting machine, and performed brazing work in which he had had previous experience . At the time he was hired it was noted in his application that he had some schooling in drafting and he expressed a preference for that type of work Thereafter, pursuant to his frequent requests, he was transferred on about May 20 to work as an apprentice electrical technician under Cilberti.' 'Dailon Food Fair .Stores , Inc v N L R B, 399 I' 2d 153 (C A 6), cued by Respondent is distinguishable Heller was voicing O'Neil's antiunion policy following his conversation with him, and there is no evidence to indicate that Svatek was prounion `there was uncontradu.ted testimony that Seward had threatened to Seward was instrumental in contacting the union representative, Andy Heck, about organizing the plant, and after receiving a number of union authorization cards he solicited and obtained about 65 signatures on said cards from out of approximately 100 to 110 production and maintenance employees. As indicated above he also solicited supervisors. Seward testified that on the afternoon of July 15 Quality Control Manager Bligh called him to his office and informed him that he was being terminated because of a lack of work in his area and the need to cut down on expenses. When he remonstrated that it seemed to him that they had more work than they could handle, and asked whether he could be rehired, Bligh assured him he could be rehired Seward also inquired whether there was anything he could do in some other area of the plant until work became available in his present job to which he could then return Bligh replied there was one other job, lifting heavy units into a washroom, which Seward would not want When Seward stated he could not refuse anything and would take the job. Bligh informed him that they had already found someone else and offered to give him a good recommendation for a job elsewhere. Bligh denied telling Seward about another job being available or having just been filled He claimed that Seward was terminated because it was necessary to cut costs in the indirect section of quality control, that he informed Seward he would he rehired it his job as a trainee in quality control or a job in any other section of quality control opened up, and that he indicated these prospects on Seward's personnel records.i° On July 17 Seward returned to the plant to inquire of Bligh about reemployment. While waiting to see him, he met Svatek, who said. "I told you. didn't I tell you you'd get fired for monkeying with the Union')- When Seward replied that he was terminated, not fired, Svatek said, "That's a nice way saying fired." Seward then stated that it was because of a lack of work and not because of the Union which caused his termination, to which Svatek responded. "we can't tie the Union in because it's against the law to fire on account of the Union." Seward also testified that on September 15 he returned to the plant to ascertain whether work had picked up sufficiently to warrant his recall. While in his car on the parking lot O'Neil and Edward Sokolowski" came out of the plant and approached him Sokolowski told him he had no right to be there and he replied that he came to find out whether he could return to work Sokolowski then stated that he (Seward) had been involved in union activity, that pictures had been taken of him handing out the union cards, that they could not have a union, and, that if one came in it would be the end of the Company. Seward denied that such pictures could have been taken because he had never passed out cards on company time O'Neil then told him that if he went home, signed a statement to the effect that he would release the Company from any unfair labor practice charges, and mail it in, he would be rehired in the near future i= resign unless he was transferred "Based on my observation of the manner in which they testified and on the plausibility of their testimony, I credit Seward's version of then conversation f also note that Bligh did not deny Seward's request for any available job "Vice president and general manager "At first Seward attributed the conversation about absolving the Company from any unfair labor practice to Sokolowski Ile thereafter claimed that O'Neil made the proposition to him GLADDING KEYSTONE CORP. Sokolowski and O'Neil denied either meeting or having a conversation in which they made the statements attributed to them by Seward. O'Neil also testified that he had not gone to the plant on September 15, a Sunday, and, in tact , had spent the day at or around his home. On rebuttal, Seward changed the date of this alleged conversation to sometime during the earlier part of September " With regard to Seward's termination, O'Neil claimed that it was part of a program resulting from a review of the projected volume of business and its cost. He testified that a significant decline in business had been projected for the months following June after having built up the output during the previous months, which necessitated reducing all unnecessary costs. that shipments following June were 65 percent of the June shipments, that the Company made other changes in conformance with the projected decline in work by terminating employee Reddington who did technical type work in the quality assurance department, and transferring employee Donna Gransberry. a tester in the quality control department, to a clerical position in engineering replacing the prior employee in that position who was terminated, that on July 15 there were 21 employees in quality control, who were gradually reduced to 9 at the present time, that neither Reddington nor Gransberry had been reinstated in quality control. and that the sole reason for discharging Seward was to reduce costs in line with the volume of business On cross-examination, however, O'Neil revealed that in January there were between 40 and 50 employees in the plant of whom about 30 worked in maintenance and production, that on July I they had approximately 120 employees, that in July about 24 employees were hired. including a Paul Goodman who was hired on about July 6 as an assembler in production and maintenance, and left on August 16, a Mr. Graves who was hired on July 8, and a Mr Shroeder who was hired on July 24 to do assembly work until September 20 when he left, that during August, 14 more employees were hired, that they had no difficulty in recruiting inexperienced help, using the New York State Employment Service and advertisements, but had to train them, that after July 15 at least one employee was hired as a production tester in quality control, and that in December there were 200 employees in the plant, which was their projection for that time In explanation of hiring 38 employees during July and August. O'Neil asserted that they were hired in production and maintenance where 65 employees had been terminated between May and August, and that none had been hired in the calibration technician department of quality control. However, he admitted that at the representation hearing in August, Respondent opposed holding an election at that time and moved to dismiss the representation petition on the ground that the employee unit was being expanded and more employees were being hired. "i find that Seward's testimony concerning this alleged incident was uncertain and to some extent contradictory in contrast with the straightforward and positive testimony given by O'Neil and Sokolowski It also appears that no charge was filed until December 19, some 3 months alter the alleged conversation Nor was any attempt made until March 19, 1969, a week hcforc the hearing , to amend the complaint to include an allegation based on the purported proposal to absolve the Company from any unfair labor practice charge, when the General Counsel served an intention to amend the complaint in this respect Under these circumstances, 1 credit the testimony of O'Neil and Sokolowski regarding this alleged incident CONCI LSIONS 419 I find that the evidence clearly establishes that Respondent was aware of Seward's involvement as the leader in the union organizing campaign. that it was strongly opposed to any unionization of the plant and strove to prevent it, and that warnings had been conveyed to Seward by company supervisors to the effect that his job was in jeopardy because of his union activity. I also find that Respondent has tailed to substantiate its contention that a contemplated decline in business required a reduction in indirect costs involving the discharge of Seward. It clearly appears that Respondent was greatly increasing its employee complement during all of 1968. It even opposed a Board election in August because it was expanding the employee unit involved. Also, at least one employee was hired after July 15 as a tester in quality control However. even assuming there were economic considerations for terminating him, his union activities were undoubtedly a very significant, if not the prime, factor in Respondent's decision to discharge or lay him off on July 15, and I so find The availability of a lawful cause for discharge is no defense where the employee is actually discharged primarily because of his union activities. N L R.B v Ace Comb Co. 342 F.2d 841, 847 (C.A. 8); N.L R.B v. Symons Manufacturing Co, 328 F 2d 835. 837 (C.A 2). 1, therefore, conclude that Respondent discriminatorily discharged Seward in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Furthermore, it indisputably appears that a large number of new employees were hired in production and maintenance at and around the time when Seward was terminated. As found above, Seward requested employment wherever available in the plant, and, as indicated, he was experienced in doing work in production and maintenance for which new employees had to be trained I. find that Respondent was motivated to discriminatorily deny him a transfer or reemployment in production and maintenance because of his union activity also in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following' CONCLUSIONS OF L .sw 1. At all times material herein, the Union has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act 2. At all times material herein, Respondent has been engaged in commerce as an employer within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 3 Respondent has interfered with, restrained, or coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act within the meaning of and in violation of Section 8(a)(I) of the Act. by interrogating employees concerning union matters, proposing tentative employee salary increases to influence the employees against the Union, and threatening to discharge an employee for continuing to support the Union. 4. Respondent has discriminatorily discharged Aaron Seward and refused to reinstate him in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 6 Respondent did not commit other alleged violations not specifically found herein. 420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent has discriminatorily discharged Aaron Seward and refused to reinstate him, I shall recommend that Respondent offer to reinstate him to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him Backpay shall be computed on a quarterly basis and in a manner consistent with the Board policy set forth in F W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in the case, I hereby issue the following. RECOMMENDED ORDER Respondent, Gladding Keystone Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Gladding Corporation, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Interrogating employees concerning union matters, proposing salary increases to employees to influence them against the Union, or threatening to discharge employees because of their union membership or activities. (b) Discouraging membership in International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. AFL-CIO. or in any other union by discharging. refusing to reinstate, or otherwise discriminating in respect to the hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment of its employees. (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Offer Aaron Seward immediate and unconditional reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him in the manner set forth in the section hereof entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order. (c) Post at its plant in Oneonta. New York, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 3, 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 Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith." (e) Notify Aaron Seward if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his 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. IT IS FLRTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found. 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: This notice is posted pursuant to a Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner, issued after a trial in which both sides had the opportunity to present evidence. The Trial Examiner found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to inform our employees of their rights. The Act gives all our employees the following rights. To organize themselves, to form, join, or help unions, to bargain as a group through a representative of their own choosing, to act together for collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refuse to do any of these things. We assure our employees that. WE WiLLNOrUnlawfully.interrogate them concerning their union activities. WE WILL NOT', propose tentative wage increases to our employees in order to influence them against International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge employees because of their union support WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere' with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act. WE. WiLI NOT,discouraee membership in International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization of our employees by discharging them or refusing to reinstate them or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL make whole Aaron Seward for any loss of earning he may have suffered by reason of his discriminatory discharge and offer him reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position without "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 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 "Notity the Regional Director for Region 3, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith " GLADDING KEYSTONE CORP. prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed WL WILL notify Aaron Seward if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his 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. GLADDING KLYSTONI. CORPORATION, A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF GLADDING CORPORATION (Employer) Dated By 421 (Representatise ) (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 It employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions , they may communicate directly with the Board ' s Regional Office, Fourth Floor, The 120 Building, 120 Delaware Avenue. Buffalo, New York 14202. Telephone 716-842-3100.