FWG Corp.

588 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FWG Corporation , formerly known as Northwest Automatic Products Corporation, and Dyson-Kissner Corporation, Northwest Automatic Division , successor of Northwest Automatic Products Corporation and United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE). Case 18-CA-2682 September 24, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , AND ZAGORIA On April 6, 1969, Trial Examiner Jerry B. Stone issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged 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. He further found that Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices and recommended that such allegations he dismissed. 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 proceeding 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 proceeding, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(e) 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, and orders that Respondent, FWG Corporation, formerly known as Northwest Automatic Products Corporation, and Dyson-Kissner Corporation, Northwest Automatic Division, successor of Northwest Automatic Products Corporation, Minneapolis. Minnesota. its officers, agents. successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JFRRY B STONE, Trial Examiner:This proceeding, under Section l0(b) of the National Labor Relations Act. as amended, was tried pursuant to due notice on February I I and 12, 1969, at Minneapolis, Minnesota. The original charge was filed on September 27, 1968. The original complaint in this matter issued on December 5, 1968. The amended complaint in this matter issued on February 5, 1969 ' The essential issues in this case are (1) whether, Dyson-Kissner Corporation, Northwest -Automatic Products Division, is a successor of FWG Corporation,' formerly known as Northwest Automatic Products Corporation, (2) whether Respondent FWG engaged in acts of interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, (3) whether Respondent FWG discriminatorily terminated the employment of Lois Nalezny and Geraldine Sodman on September 3, 1968, because of belief of their union adherence, (4) whether Respondent FWG, on September 3, 1968, discriminatorily changed its policy of granting unpaid leaves of absence to employees because certain of its employees engaged in union or concerted activities, and (5) the question of remedial responsibility of the Respondents. All parties were afforded full opportunity to participate in the proceeding, and the General Counsel and counsel for the Respondents filed briefs which have been considered. Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of witnesses, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE,BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER; Prior to October 1, 1968, for many years a corporation known as the Northwest Automatic Products Corporation had been a corporation duty organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Minnesota. On or about October 1, 1968, the assets of said Northwest Automatic Products Corporation and the usage of the name of Northwest Automatic Products Corporation were sold by Northwest Automatic Products Corporation to Dyson-Kissner Corporation. At said time the former Northwest Automatic Products Corporation took the name of FWG Corporation and has continued in existence for the ultimate purpose of liquidation at a later time for certain tax advantages. Thus it may be said that b WG Corporation. formerly known as Northwest Automatic Products Corporation, is and has been for many years a corporation duly organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Minnesota. FWG engaged for many years, up to October 1, 1968, in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of automatic screw machine products. Between December 5, 1967, and October I. 1968, FWG manufactured, shipped, and sold finished products valued in excess of $50,000 to points outside the State of Minnesota, and in the course and conduct of its business operations purchased, transferred, and delivered to its plant steel products and other goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 which were transported to said plant directly from States of the United States other than the State of Minnesota. Prior to October 1, 1968, Frank Griswold was president and owner of I- WG (formerly known as Northwest 'The procedural issues relating to notice and service of the amended complaint and time of hearing were waived by the Respondents. 'Sometimes herein referred to simply as Respondent FWG or HWG Based upon the pleadings and clarification thereof made at the hearing, and the credited testimony of Griswold 178 NLRB No. 99 FWG CORPORATION Automatic Products Corporation), K. P. Manufacturing Company, and Twin City Monorail Company.' K. P. Manufacturing Company and Twin City Monorail Company were situated next to the location of FWG. As indicated, on or about October I. 1968, Griswold sold the assets of FWG to Dyson-Kissner Corporation. Dyson-Kissner Corporation is a holding company that has ownership in various companies.' Along with the assets, Dyson-Kissner Corporation purchased the right to use the names of Northwest Automatic Products Corporation, K P. Manufacturing Company. and Twin City Monorail Company. As indicated, FWG has continued in corporate existence for the purpose of ultimate liquidation at a time advantageous for tax purposes Since October 1, 1968, Dyson-Kissner Corporation has had what is known as Dyson-Kissner Corporation, Northwest Automatic Products Division. This division is composed of Northwest Automatic Products Corporation, K P. Manufacturing Company, and Twin City Monorail Company. The evidence is overwhelming that the Northwest 'Automatic Products Corporation owned by Dyson-Kissner Corporation and a part of Dyson-Kissner Corporation. Northwest Automatic Products Division, is substantially the same employing enterprise as existed prior to October 1, 1968. Thus Griswold. who continued as president of the successor enterprise, credibly testified to the effect that the only change was one of ownership, that the work performed was substantially the same, the location and relationship to other nearby companies was the same, the employees were substantially the same, the supervision was substantially the same from top to bottom, and that supervision was executed substantially in the same manner There is no evidence to reveal that Dyson-Kissner Corporation at the time of purchase of the assets (and name) of FWG Corporation, formerly known as Northwest Automatic Products Corporation, had knowledge of pending unfair labor practice charges. Considering all of the foregoing, I conclude and find that Dyson-Kissner Corporation, Northwest Automatic Products Division, on October I, 1968, became a successor enterprise to FWG Corporation.' Considering all of the foregoing, I conclude and find that the enterprise known by corporate name as Northwest Automatic Products Corporation and functioning as a manufacturing and employing enterprise up to October 1, 1968, and continuing only in corporate name as FWG Corporation thereafter and not as a continuing manufacturing or employing enterprise. constituted an employer enterprise engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. I further conclude that at all times material herein prior to October 1, 1968, said enterprise known herein as Respondent FWG Corporation, formerly known as Northwest Automatic Products Corporation, was an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. I also conclude and find that after October I. 1968, Respondent, Dyson-Kissner Corporation, Northwest Automatic Products Division, Northwest Automatic Products 'Griswold is president of other companies but such fact has no relevance to the issues herein 'In some of said companies, Dyson-Kissner owns varying amounts of stock As to some other companies. Dyson-Kissner Corporation owns said companies outright `Witham Buick. Inc. 139 NLRB 1209 589 Corporation, was an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the, Act. 1 further find on the basis of the foregoing that the Board's jurisdictional standards are satisfied and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The status of the labor organization involved is in issue by the pleadings. The uncontradicted credited testimony of Koedinger clearly reveals that the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE) represents employees for the purpose of collective bargaining, and admits to membership employees in machine shops and companies like Dyson-Kissner, Northwest Automatic Products Division. The facts also reveal that said Union started an organizing campaign at Northwest Automatic Products Corporation around March and April of 1968 Considering the foregoing, it is concluded and found that United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE) is and has been at all times material herein a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of .the Act. 111. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACIICES A. Preliminary Issues Supervisory Status' The facts are clear, and I conclude and find that at all times material herein prior to October 1, 1968, the following named persons occupied the positions set opposite their respective names and were agents of Respondent FWG, acting in its behalf, and were supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. Frank W Griswold President Dennis Smith - Quality Manager The facts are clear, and I conclude and find that at all times material herein subsequent to October 1, 1968, the following named persons occupied the positions set opposite their respective names and have been and are now agents of Dyson-Kissner Corporation, Northwest Automatic Products Division, acting in its behalf, and were supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. I-rank W. Griswold - President Dennis Smith - Quality Manager B Interference, Restraint, and Coercion 1. The General Counsel alleges and the Respondent denies that Griswold. on or about April 4, 1968, accused an employee of initiating the union organizing campaign. General Counsel's witness Kotula testified to the effect that he went to a union meeting on April 3, 1968, that on April 4, 1968, Griswold was engaged in giving employees their weekly pay at their work station, that on such occasion Griswold accused Kotula of being a union instigator and organizer, that Kotula denied this, that Kotula told Griswold that Griswold had accused him of the same thing 10 years ago and had been wrong then and was wrong now. Kotula testified to the effect that he also told Griswold that he (Kotula) had told others at the 'The facts are based upon a composite of the credited testimony of Griswold, Smith, Nalezny, Sodman, and other witnesses 590 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD union meeting that Griswold would have him into the office, and that Griswold told him, "No, I am not having you in the office, I am talking to you right here." Griswold testified to the ettect that he did not have such a conversation on or about April 4, 1968, but that he did have a conversation with Kotula, on a payday, after April 30, 1968. Griswold testified to the effect that the first knowledge he had of the Union was on April 30, 1968, when the Union distributed a leaflet, and that shortly thereafter, on a payday, he and Kotula had a conversation. Griswold's testimony as to what occurred is revealed by the following excerpts from the record. A I think that was sometime after they had handed out the circulars and he said, "Now. you remember 1 was accused," when he was on the night shift, "of starting a union," and he said, "I didn't start this one, if you think I did, you are wrong again," yes, I remember that Q. Was that in response to some question of yours? A. No, I think he started the conversation because he didn't want me to think that these pamphlets were handed out, he didn't want me to think he had anything to do with it, he volunteered that information. Q. So, then, at no time, then, you did not ask him if he was the organizer or instigator of the union at all'? A. He told ine I should not suspect him of that because he wasn't and that he had been suspected before when he was on the night shift and I told him I hadn't heard about that at the time, but I found out since then that they did tell me that he did If 1 could see the date I could tell you for sure As indicated, the issue is one of credibility. Griswold, with respect to his testimony relating to the Grivna incident, set forth later in this Decision, testified to certain facts contrary to the weight of the evidence and the credited facts Kotula, with respect to his testimony relating to the October 10, 1968, "button" incident, set forth later in this Decision, also testified to facts contrary to the weight of the evidence and the credited facts Both Griswold and Kotula testified with reference to a conversation in May 1968 about loss of pay for 4 days' time because of an injury With respect to this testimony, it is clear that Kotula appeared to he more objective, reliable, frank, forthright, and truthful than did Griswold It is clear from the testimony of both witnesses that Griswold let it be known that the "pay" was in effect a gilt granted and not required by law. 1 credit Kotula 's testimony to the effect that Griswold said, "Why don't you talk to your business agent about it and see if he can pay you." A short time later, however. Griswold paid Kotula for the lost time Considering the totality of the facts, the logical consistency thereof, and Kotula's overall more credible appearance as a witness, l credit Kotula's testimony relating to the April 4 event and discredit Griswold's version of facts in denial thereof. Such conduct is clearly violative of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. In this case, however, such conduct is isolated in nature. Thus the credited facts reveal that after April 4 Respondent has not been found to violate the Act until the events of September 3. 1968. Since the remedial provisions drafted for the conduct found violative on September 3, 1968," will also provide sufficient remedy for this type conduct, I shall not make further specific remedial recommendation for this specific violative conduct 'Discriminatory termination of employment of NaleLny and Sodman in violation of See 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act 2. The General Counsel alleges and the Respondent denies that (a) on or about September 12, 1968, Frank W. Griswold created the impression of surveillance of employees' union activities by informing employees that he could ascertain which employees had signed union authorization cards, and that (b) Frank W Griswold, on or about September 12, 1968. told an employee in the presence of other employees that he was demoted and his wages would he reduced because he signed an authorization card for the Union. The facts' are clear that in November 1967 Grivna had been made a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. Thus it is clear that Grivna, as a foreman, who also engaged in production work, responsibly made assignments of work to other employees. Sometime prior to September 12, 1968, the Respondent encountered problems concerning recordkeeping in Grivna's work area. This problem complicated Respondent's ascertainment of costs relating to certain Government jobs. The Respondent decided to assign a female employee, Sellgren, to help keep such records. Griswold called all of the grinding room employees into his office, on a day around the middle of September 1968, and told them that Sellgren was going to do certain recordkeeping in the grinding room Later Grivna construed this use of Sellgren as being a replacement of him as a foreman. Grivna indicated to others that he was dissatisfied and would not work under a woman foreman. The next day Grivna's attitude was reported to Griswold Griswold thereupon went to the grinding room with Imogene Sellgrcn, introduced her to the other employees, and related her duties. A heated argument ensued between Griswold and Grivna concerning the records, transfer of employees from the night shift, and the use of Sellgren. Grivna stated that his work had been satisfactory, that things were running smoothly, and that there was no need to transfer employees from the night shift to the day shift 10 Grivna told Griswold that he was going to quit. Griswold explained his need for time records and that Sellgren would not be a foreman or give orders. that she was only going to keep records. Grivna told Griswold that he had not wanted the job as foreman and asked Griswold why Griswold did not fire him. Griswold told Grivna that he did not want to fire him. that Grivna was a good man. Griswold told Grivna that he should he loyal to the Company, that he should work with Sellgren and for the Company, and that a person who was not loyal for the Company was not worth anything Grivna told Griswold in effect that he had been loyal, that he did the work of two men, and that he still did not want to work with Sellgren Griswold told Grivna 'The facts are based upon a composite of the credited aspects of the testimony of Grivna, I-nta, Hanson, Garvois, Morris, Sellgren, and Griswold, and a logical consistency of the facts The overlying thrust of the event is not really in dispute Much of Griswold's and Grivna's testimony was to the same effect . Such testimony is credited over other witnesses' testimony where in conflict Testimony by Grivna, Fritz , and Griswold was more in detail than other witnesses However, the testimony of each of the above-named witnesses was to an extent conclusionary, fragmented. disjointed, and obviously not in total detail Each of the above-named witnesses revealed a problem as to accuracy in precise timing of statements Of all the witnesses Sellgren impressed me as being more sure of whether Grivna was relieved as a foreman before the remarks about a union were made I credit her testimony in such regard I discredit Griswold s testimony to the effect that he did not tell Grivna that his rate of pay was being cut I discredit all testimony inconsistent with the facts found. '•Grivna worked on the day shift E,WG CORPORATION that he (Grivna) was bullheaded and Grivna told Griswold that he (Griswold) was bullheaded. Grivna left to get a drink of water. While Grivna was gone, Griswold asked the employees if Grivna wasn't bullheaded and there was some indicated assent. Griswold stated that he was also bullheaded. Griswold remarked that since Grivna worked so hard that he ought to let him work halt the time for full pay. Grivna, who had left for a drink of water, returned a short time later. Griswold told Grivna that if he were dissatisfied with things, he should be a man and quit. Grivna told Griswold that he did not want to quit, that he (Griswold) should be a man and fire him. Griswold told Grivna that if he were that miserable that he ought not to work for the Company, that Grivna was not loyal, that he did not want him as a foreman, and that he was no longer foreman. Griswold told Grivna that he (Griswold) was boss, that he was not going to let Sellgren down, that he was going to run the shop, and that Grivna was not going to tell him how to run the shop Grrvna told Griswold that he was not trying to tell him how to run the shop Griswold told Grivna that he would bet him a $1,000 that he (Grivna) had signed a union card. Grivna asked Griswold how he knew that he had signed a union card. Griswold told Grivna that he did not know, that he could find out and that the Union always sold out. Grivna told Griswold that he had signed a union card and stated. "so what." Griswold said, "See, you weren't one of those that was loyal to me and that is why you are no longer foreman here." Griswold told Grrvna that he was being returned to his old rate. The next day Griswold spoke to some of the tool-grinding employees about Grivna. They indicated that they thought Grivna was a good, hard-working, deserving employee. Later Griswold told Grivna that he would keep his rate of pay, that he (Griswold) had never cut an employee's rate. Later Grivna received a 10-cent-per-hour wage increase. Considering all of the foregoing, I conclude and find that the facts do not reveal that on or about September 12. 1968, Griswold created the impression of surveillance of employees' union activities by informing employees that he could ascertain which employees had signed union cards. The facts clearly reveal a heated argument, and the employees would reasonably evaluate it as such and not that there had been surveillance or would he surveillance of their activities. It will be recommended that the allegation of conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) in such respect will be dismissed. Furthermore, I conclude and find that the allegation of illegal conduct, demotion, and reduction of wages, alleged violative of Section 8(a)( I). is without merit and should be dismissed. The Respondent has a right to demand loyalty of its supervisors Respondent's conduct was not directed against the supervisor in reprisal for refusal to engage in illegal antiunion or concerted activities conduct. Accordingly, it is recommended that such allegations of 8(a)(1) conduct he dismissed. 3 The General Counsel alleges and the Respondent denies "that Frank W. Griswold, on or about October 10. 1968, recorded or caused to be recorded the names of all employees wearing Union campaign insignia or buttons in the plant." General Counsel witnesses Kotula and Fritz testified to the composite effect that on October 9, 1968, certain employees decided to wear union buttons on October 10, 1968, that October 10, 1968, was a regular payday, that 591 Griswold customarily on payday went through the plant with his secretary to pay each employee, that Griswold did so on October 10. 1968, that they observed Griswold when coming into contact with an employee wearing a union button speak to his secretary, Shirley Cole, and that they observed Shirley Cole writing something down on such occasion. Griswold testified to the effect that he went through the plant on October 10, 1968, as was customary on payday, that he saw employees wearing union buttons, and that he did not speak to or direct his secretary to write anything down with reference to the union buttons Shirley Cole testified to the effect that she was out of the country on October 10, 1968, that she was overseas in Portugal on such date, and had been on such a trip for several weeks. Documentary official passport records support Cole's testimony It is clear that the General Counsel's witnesses are incorrect in their testimony relating to Cole's activities. This casts grave doubts on their reliability of observation I find their testimony so unreliable that it lacks probative value in establishing the alleged illegal conduct. f=urthermore, I find Griswold to be a more reliable witness than Kotula and Fritz on the events of October 10. 1968, and credit his denial of the alleged illegal conduct. It will be recommended that the allegation as to conduct of October 10, 1968. alleged to be violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. be dismissed. C. Discrimination in Employment The General Counsel alleges in effect and the Respondent denies that ( 1) Respondent terminated the employment of Lois Nalezny and Geraldine Sodman on September 3, 1968, because of their union or protected activities, the Respondent has at all times since September 3, 1968, failed and refused to reinstate said employees, and such conduct is violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, and (2) Respondent , on or about September 3, 1968, changed its policy of granting unpaid leaves of absence to employees because certain of its employees engaged in union or concerted activities , and such conduct is violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act. The facts relating to the foregoing issues may be set I orth as follows 1. Prior to the commencement of the union organizational efforts in March and April 1968, Respondent FWG operated on the basis of a very flexible, understanding, and cooperative relationship with the employees . Griswold, president of Respondent FWG, maintained a close and friendly relationship with employees and did so in such a manner as enabled him to virtually know all of his employees' problems and desires. As an example , Griswold personally went around on payday to pay each employee. On such occasions his secretary went along to take notes if necessary about problems. Griswold thereafter took steps to aid in the solution of the employees' problems or desires. Griswold maintained a policy that employees could take their earned vacation time at any time the employee desired. Griswold maintained this policy even in the face of objection from supervisors as to production demands The facts are clear that Griswold also allowed employees to take leave without pay over and above their earned vacation time. The overwhelming weight of the evidence reveals that Respondent FWG was not formalistic with respect to the 592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD way it handled employee requests for extended leave. The employee could request such leave through the foreman or through Griswold. Since Griswold maintained a close relationship with his supervisors and employees, it is clear that he was well aware of most requests and that it was his policy that the employee requests be honored. I credit Nalezny's testimony to the effect that her pre-1968 requests for extended summer leave were submitted through her foreman. I note that Cora Mattson's testimony elicited by Respondent's counsel corroborates N l ' i l di ezny a s test mony. Mattson, in answer t ng o ea questions , testified to the effect that she later spoke to Griswold who told her she could have the extended leave. On cross-examination Mattson was unable to time these events clearly . Griswold's, Cole's, and Smith's testimony was to the composite effect that only Griswold could allow the extended leave and that the employee had to see Griswold. Considering all of the testimony and the logical consistency of the facts , I credit the testimony of Nalezny and other employee witnesses to the effect that employees secured their leave by going through their foreman. I discredit testimony of Griswold, Cole, and Smith contradictory thereof. I note that Smith's actions and statements relating to the July 3 and September 3, 1968, events clearly indicate that the procedures followed by Nalezny and Sodman in securing their leave was consistent with past practice. As indicated, Griswold stayed on top of events and clearly had the power to approve or disapprove of such leave His conduct and practice as a whole however reveal that his normal conduct and practice was to approve the employee request . The facts also reveal that he was not formalistic in taking care of such matters. 2. The Union commenced its organizing campaign in late March 1968. Thereafter , on or about April 4, 1968, Griswold accused Kotula of being a union organizer and instigator . About a month later, Kotula missed 4 days' work because of an injury on the job. A short time later Kotula and Griswold had a discussion about sick pay. In the discussion Griswold said, "Why don't you talk to your business agent about it and see if he can pay you." Griswold ultimately made it clear to Kotula that he would be paid but that the Respondent did not have to do so. 3. In April 1968 Lois Nalezny and Geraldine Sodman signed union authorization cards. Thereafter both Nale7ny and Sodman talked to other employees about the Union. Excepting for the remarks made by Foreman Smith to Sodman on September 3, 1968, there is no evidence of company knowledge of the union activity of Nalezny and Sodman. 4. Prior to 1968 both Nalezny and Sodman had had occasions wherein they had taken extended leave from work . Nalezny, at different times in the past _years, had taken the summer months off Sodman had had to take time off for surgery as is revealed by the following excerpts from her credited testimony: A I think it was '67, 1 am not sure . But I asked Dennis Smith, my supervisor, if I could have time off, and he says . "Well, yes, you can, since it was surgery.- I took time off and went to the hospital and had surgery and came back Q Did you talk to Mr . Griswold in advance about that`? A No, 1 didn't talk to him about taking time off. Dennis Smith had said to me "How are you going to live?" And I said, "Well, I will just live on what I have saved." And he said, "Well, why don't you say something to Mr. Griswold and maybe you will get paid compensation." So Mr. Griswold came around the day, I don't know if it was the day I left or one day he was passing checks out, and I said, "Mr. Griswold, I am going to take time' off for surgery." And he said, "Yes, I know," and he went ahead. So I didn't talk to him about anything. Q. And did you have any problem coming back to work when you returned from surgery? A. No. 5. In 1968 both Nalezny and Sodman spoke to Foreman Smith about taking extended leave for the summer. Sodman's conversations with Foreman Smith are revealed by the following credited excerpts from her testimony: A Well, mine started in May My baby-sitter said she couldn't baby-sit anymore and I says, "Well, could you baby-sit until the kids get out of school'?" And she said, yeah, her husband didn't want her to, but she would. So, anyway, I told Dennie about it. or Smitty about it, and he says, "Well, if you can't find one just take an extended vacation." I said, "Fine." Well, I kept looking and looking and I couldn't find one. Then I told him that she would baby-sit up until July, that was it, her husband said no more. So when he came around I just told him that I would have to have the summer off until the kids started back to school, and that was it until July 3rd. Nalezny, as indicated, had taken extended leave during the past years. An exhibit in the record reveals that Nalezny was off for the following approximate times in the past. 1967-- July 8 through September 9; 1966--July 2 through July 30; 1965 -July 3 through August 14; 1964 - June 15 through June 30. and August 17 through August 31. Nalezny credibly testified to the manner and practice of her receiving extended leave as is revealed by the following credited excerpts from her testimony: A Well, Dennis Smith would come around with the vacation schedule in June and ask us what time we wanted off or when we wanted our vacation and we would tell him, and then, well, that was it, he would put it down on the schedule and it was never said that we couldn't have it or that we could. I just would go on vacation and come back in the fall, although last year I think I took an extra week, not this last year, the year before, I called in, it was on a Tuesday after Labor Day, we had been out of town and was busy and asked him if I could have another week and he said yes. Q. Who was that you asked" A. Dennis Smith. Q. In either 1967 or 1968 did you have any conversation with Mr. Griswold about it'? A No. Q About your vacation? A No. About 3 weeks before July 3, 1968, Pat Drager was introduced to Nalezny Nalezny was told by Jim Blexrud (assistant to Smith) to break Drager in on the jobs that Nalezny was working on, and that Drager would take over while Nalezny was gone in the summer." "Naiecny testified to the effect that Drager was a college student and was planning to return to school in the fall Griswold and Smith testified to the effect that they were under the impression that Dragcr was interested in permanent employment and was so hired The facts reveal that Drager, at some time after her initial interview for employment, FWG CORPORATION 593 In June 1968 Foreman Smith went among his employees to ascertain the vacation schedule. Nalezny informed Smith that in addition to her earned vacation time she desired, as she had done in the past, to have the summer off until September 3, 1968. Smith made notation of this information on his vacation schedule Smith credibly testified to the effect that he informed the office of the extended leave plans of Sodman and Nalezny as is revealed by the following credited excerpts from his testimony A The only thing that I had done, normally for the people who are leaving earlier on earlier vacations which I would have to let the people in the office know so that their checks could be made out and ready for the people who are leaving early, and at the time, why, I informed everybody, or informed the office that these people are going to be gone at the time. Q By the "office", do you mean Shirley? A. Shirley, right. Cole testified that she learned of Sodman's plan by a "note" on her calendar at payroll time Cole apparently did not recall knowledge of information about Nalezny It is not clear whether Smith's informing of the office as to the extended leave plan was "orally," in writing, or both.' T In fact, considering all of the evidence and probabilities thereof, and leading nature of the questions. it is not clear whether he passed the information about Sodman and Nalezny to the office through Griswold. It is clear, that one way or the other, Cole knew of Sodman's plans In October 1967 the State of Minnesota had instituted penalty provisions for untimely supplying of information by an employer pursuant to a Request for Wage and Separation Information by the State. At this time the State of Minnesota suggested a practice of filing a separation notice whenever an employee was separated from employment for any reason I note that the requirements suggested by the State of Minnesota in fact did not require a separation notice for employees not separated from employment. The Respondent, however, decided to consider- for reporting purposes - employees who took extended leave as employees who had quit and to issue separation notices thereto. With the exception of the separation notices given to Nalezny and Sodman, and Griswold's and Cole's testimony thereto, there is little evidence to support the Respondent's contended basis for such decision. There is evidence in the record of employees who had quit or been terminated otherwise and who received separation notices. The inaccuracy of Respondent's interpretation of the "separation" notice requirements and the use of the word `'quit" in such circumstances casts a doubt on the validity of the usage of the separation notice. On the other hand the evidence does not support a basis for believing that as of July 3, 1968, the "separation" notice was used for an ulterior purpose against Nalezny and Sodman. indicated plans to get married in October It is not clear whether Nalecny's testimony was intended to reveal how she ascertained that Drager was returning to school Conceivably, all of the witnesses to this point could be testifying truthfully Thus Drager could have indicated one thing to Griswold and Smith and another thing to Nalezny In any event, a finding of tact either way would not affect the ultimate outcome of this case It is clear that Foreman Smith considered Nalezny as an employee who would return in the tall Furthermore , it is clear that Respondent FWG hired many summer students knowing many would not rcmaut in employment in the fall As indicated, 1 find it unnecessary to make a precise finding of fact relating to whether Drager was employed with belict of her future permanent employment into the fall "it is clear that his sheet as to vacation leaves was sent to the office Accordingly, I am persuaded from all the facts that Respondent FWG, honestly but mistakenly, decided to issue the separation notices in 1968 as a matter of form and not as substance. On July 3, 1968, around noon, Griswold and his secretary, Shirley Cole, went around and paid the employees off. Sodman was given an envelope containing her regular check, an additional check to cover all other wages due, a separation notice setting forth that she had "quit," and an insurance cancellation notice. Nalezny received only her regular check." Sodman went to lunch and opened her envelope finding her checks, her separation notice. and the cancellation of her insurance. What occurred is revealed by the following credited excerpts from her testimony " A Well, Mr. Griswold came around with the checks at, oh, about two minutes to noon and he handed me the envelope and the bell rang and I went out to lunch And we were in the car and I opened the envelope up, and to my surprise there was a separation notice and two checks and there was a notice notifying me that my insurance was dropped. So I got kind of shook up, you know, because they had said I could come back, and so 1, when we came back. I went in the office and I asked for Mr. Griswold and they said he wasn't in, and I says, "Is Shirley in?" And they said, "No, she isn't." She said, "Take a seat and she will be right in." I barely sat down and Shirley came in from lunch and I showed her these papers and she said that this was a new law, that they had to give these separation notices out when anybody leaves for a certain length of time and the other notice was for insurance purposes, if I would get hurt or something, that their insurance wouldn't have to cover it, I wasn't working there, so he didn't want to take that risk, I guess. So then I went out and I said to Dorothy Clark, I says -- A. I said I would like to see Dennic when he came in. and I was certifying a room. I was all by myself and Dennie came back there and he says, "What's your problem?" And I showed him the separation notice and the other thing and my check, and he says, "Now, what the hell?" And he says, "Well, I will go up to the front office and see " Smith went in to see Griswold about the separation notice given to Sodman'' Smith also mentioned the fact that Nalc7nv was requesting similar leave and learned that at that time Nalezny had not received a separation notice. Griswold related to Smith the problem about separation notices and reporting requirements and that separation notices were to be given employees wherein a question might exist as to their returning to work, that some employees were complaining about favored treatment, Nalezny would he handled just as Sodman had been, it was a formality, and that the employees could return as they had in the past in the fall "As had been done in past years In the past she had been mailed later another check for the other wages due "Cole testified substantially similar to Sodman to the c onversation between the two. Cole, however, testified to the effect that she suggested to Sodman to see Griswold Cole did not appear to be as sure of the events as Sodman I credit Sodman 's denial that Cole suggested that she see Griswold and discredit Cole's testimony thereto "The facts are based upon the credited aspects of Smith's testimony, the logical consistency of the evidence as a whole, and a fair inference therefrom Thus 1 am persuaded that Smith injected the question of Naleiny s leave, that contrary to Smith's testimony , which 1 do not credit. 594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Smith returned to Sodman and told her in effect that everything was all right, that he would see her in the fall, and to have a nice vacation Smith later told Shirley Cole, Griswold's secretary, that Nalezny was leaving, and Griswold telephoned Cole and instructed her to make out NaleLny's separation notice and check. Cole did so and that afternoon presented Nalezny with another check, for other wages due, a separation notice indicating that Nale7ny had "quit," and a notice of insurance cancellation What occurred is revealed by the following credited excerpts from Nalezny's testimony.'" A. Well, I received my pay check for the previous week about, a little bit before noontime, and then about five to 5 Shirley Cole came out and brought my check paying me up through that week that I was working, and which is a little hit unusual. Other years I think I got them in the mail. I don't remember getting the check on this day that I left. In the envelope with the check was a separation notice and I asked her why the separation notice was there it was marked "Voluntary quit" and I said, "I am not quitting. 1 am going on vacation." And she said. "We don't know what you are going to do during the summer, we don't know if you are coming back." I said, "Well, I have always come back other years." She said, "Yes, I know, but Mr. Griswold wouldn't want to carry you on the hospitalization in the summer When you come back in the fall you will be reinstated " The next week. Nalezny wrote to Foreman Smith a letter as follows: 3375 Brownlow Ave St Louis Park. Minn July 9 1968 Dear Smitty, Am enclosing the slip given to me with my check on July 3rd. When talking to you about taking time off I was under the impression that Pat was taking my place for the summer and I was to return in the fall and take up where I left off. I did not at any time say I was quitting. Evidently there was a misunderstanding someplace along the way. I didn't think separation notices were given out when employees went on vacation, but I probably don't know all the rules either. If so I feel that mine should have been made out, checked in the box other reason, with and explanation below that I am on an extended vacation. leave of absence, or a permitted period of time off. Correct me if l am wrong Atter spending this many years with the Co. I don't like to have a quit on my record now. I know how busy you are with Jim gone and planning on going on vacation yourself soon, but I would appreciate your attention and hearing from you on this matter. Thank You /s/ Lois Nalezny Smith replied to Nalezny's letter as is revealed by the following credited excerpts from Nalezny's testimony " Griswold did not qualify the question of the employees , return to work "Cole testified somewhat similar to Nalezny to this incident Cole, however, also testified that she suggested to Nalezny to see Griswold. Ot the two, Nalemy appeared to be a more sure witness . I credit Nalezny's denial that Cite suggested that she see Griswold I discredit Cole's testimony to such effect "Smith testified to the cflcct that he did not talk to Griswold about the separation notices after July 3, 1968 1 credit such testimony as I am convinced he discussed Nalezny ' s situation at the same time he discussed Sodman s A. Yes, he called me on the phone. It was on a Monday because he was going on vacation that week, and said he had been busy and so forth and didn't get a chance to talk to me before that and he had talked to Mr. Griswold and that I was to come back in the fall as scheduled and not to worry about it, that it was all O. K. Q I believe before I stopped you did you say you sent the separation notice back to the company? A Yes, I did, I sent that back, I don't have that. I don't know what became of it I told him that I felt that it should have been marked that I was on leave of absence or something like that, and he said, well, after he talked it over with him it was O. K., I could come back as planned, not to worry about it. 6. On September 3, 1968, neither Nalezny nor Sodman was able to report to work. Each got in contact with foreman Smith with reference to coming back to work and as to when they could do so. What initially occurred with respect to Sodman is revealed by the following credited excerpts from her testimony A No, that was just the first week of school. So I called Dennie up and I said to him "i can't come", I wasn't able to come in because my kids got to school half days and I couldn't get anybody to conic and watch them, and he says, "Oh, 0 K ", he says he had to talk to Mr. Griswold about it So he says, " I will call you back " What initially occurred with respect to Nalezny is revealed by the following credited excerpts from her testimony: A. Well, I was scheduled to return to work on September 3, the day after Labor Day, and I had an appointment at the clinic in the afternoon to take my son to have a cast put on his arm, so I sent a note with my daughter who worked in a plant nearby there to give to "Smitty". She gave it to Dorothy Clark to give it to "Smitty". in which I explained that I had this appointment at the clinic and I would come in Wednesday morning instead. Foreman Smith went to the office to see Griswold with respect to the matter of Nalezny's and Sodman's return to work. Griswold was not in the office and was out of town While Smith was in the office Griswold telephoned and was speaking to Shirley Cole, Griswold's secretary Smith inquired through Shirley Cole about the matter of Nalezny's and Sodman's returning to work. Griswold thereafter either spoke to Smith or relayed through Cole that he was not going to hire the girls back. During the conversation, Smith related that he needed the girls back. Griswold related that Smith must do with what he had, that the girls were union members, and that other girls were complaining about the girls having the summer off for vacation and their returning to work'" Later that afternoon Foreman Smith telephoned Nalezny. What occurred is revealed by the following credited excerpts from Naleznv's testimony A. Well, "Smitty" called me in the afternoon, it was after lunch, and he said, "Mr. Griswold has decided not to take you back," and I said, "Well, I thought after he had called me in July that everything was 0 K " I couldn't figure this out. I said, "I didn't think you "Based upon the credited aspects of Smith ' s testimony , the logical consistency of the facts, and a fair inference therclrom , Cole did not testify as a witness to this event 1 discredit Smith's and Griswold's testimony inconsistent with the facts round FWG CORPORATION would tell me that I was to come hack if it wasn't 0 K ," and he said, "Well, I thought it was, 1 assumed you were coming back. but", he said, "he lust isn't going to take you back." And I said, well, that is, I couldn't really understand it, and he said, "Well, I think the union is underlying here", and I said, "Well. it that is the case, there is going to be a lot of them that are going to be gone". and he just didn't respond to that Then he said that my work was good and everything, it wasn't that Q Did he say anything about another job? A Yes, he referred me to another job Q Had you asked him about it, about another lob? A No, no, I hadn't. Q. Had you. in fact, applied for a job anywhere else at an) time after July 3, 1968, till this happened'? A No. Later that afternoon Foreman Smith and Sodman had a conversation. What occurred is revealed by the following credited excerpts from Sodman's testimony j9 So I went out to the doctor with nay little one, and he had called in the meantime--well.[ know how busy it is around the plant. so I waited until about five to 5 when I knew everything would be pretty calm there, so I called and asked for Dennie and I said, "This is Jerry " And he sass, "Yeah." He says. "I went in and I talked to Mr. Griswold He says he doesn't want us back." And I said, "Us, who do you mean 'us And he says, "Lois, too " I said, "Oh, my god. after 16 years?" And he says, "Yes." And he says, "I didn't realize my girls were for the union. and I was so amazed" or stunned or something, 1 don't know. I lust didn't sa) any more. I said. "Well, it was nice working for you, Smitty " He said, "You were a good inspector", and so forth, and that ended it Sodman, by letter dated September 5, 1968, and Nalezny, by letter dated September 6. 1968, set forth to Griswold their understanding of permission to take leave in July 1968 and requested the reason for his refusal to reemploy them on September 3. 1968 On September 14. 1968, Griswold replied by letter in similar effect to Nalezny and Sodman The effect of Griswold's letter is revealed by the followine September 14, 1968 Mrs. Geraldine Sodman 1816 Golden Valley Road Minneapolis, Minnesota 55411 Dear Geraldine- In reply to your letter of September 5, 1968, we have changed our policy in regard to hiring back employees who have quit for the summer. This policy went into effect last October when we were required by law to submit Separation Notices for employees who terminate their employment with us. You must know that we have had many complaints from other employees who feel it is unfair to allow some people to quit for the summer and then rehire them in the fall at their convenience I feel certain you can understand this Very truly yours, NORTH W'ES1 AUTOMATIC PRODUCTS CORP. /s/ F W. Griswold, President FWG.sc 595 Since September 3, 1968, neither Sodman nor Nalezny have been recalled to work. The Respondent, however, in the months following has hired 14 employees to do the type of work done by Sodman and Nalezny 7. In summarv. with respect to the allegation concerning alleged change of policy in the granting of unpaid leaves of absence, I conclude and find that the evidence does not establish that the Respondent, on or about September 3, 1968, changed its policy of granting unpaid leaves of absence to employees upon request because certain of its employees engaged in union or concerted activities With respect to the foregoing, I note that the changes in reporting suggested by the State of Minnesota did not require a change in policy concerning leaves of absence. The totality of the facts relating to Respondent's conduct on July 3, 1968, reveals that Respondent did change its usage of separation notices, that this was a matter of form, and not a matter of substance, and that in fact the Respondent did not change its policy concerning the granting of unpaid leaves of absence The totality of the facts relating to Respondent's conduct in September 1968 reveals that the Respondent had not in fact changed its policy concerning the granting of unpaid leaves of absence but in fact on September 14, 1968. referred to such a change of policy as a pretext to justify a discriminatory refusal to employ Sodman and Nalezny.20 Accordingly. I conclude and find that the General Counsel has not established that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act by the alleged change in policy concerning unpaid leaves of absence 8. In summary, with respect to the refusal to employ Sodman and Nalernt' on September 3, 1968. I conclude and find that the Respondent FW'G discriminated against Sodman and Nalezny in its consideration of their continuance as employees and actual resumption of employment duties because of its belief that they had engaged in union activities With respect to the foregoing, 1 note that in accordance with past practice, Respondent FWG would have placed said employees back to work Based upon Griswold's past actions and behavior, had there been a change in policy relating to granting unpaid leaves for absence, Griswold would have had such employees so advised on July 3. 1968. Considering the total circumstances, I am convinced that Respondent F WG's motivation was revealed by Smith's statement on September 3, 1968, that he did not know his girls were for the Union. Thus, I am convinced that the reason that Sodman and Nalezny were not returned to work was because of Respondent's belief of then union activities Respondent's reasons for not employing Sodman and Nalezny thereafter shifted and "reveal" the pretextous nature of such reasons Considering Smith 's initial mention to Griswold that he had need for the girls and Griswold's lack of specific reason for "lack of need," I find the later assertion of "1 discredit Smith's testimony to the effect that his mentioning of union was conlecture and following a comment of one of the girls His testimony on the point shifted Considering the total facts, the consistency of Sodman's testimony and related events, I credit her version of facts and discredit Smith's testimony contradictory thereof "A discussion of these facts is set forth in more detail in section 8 following herein Griswold's testimony vacillated as to whether he had changed his policy In sum his testimony boils down to the effect that there was no change, except that he was stricter and that employees had always had to sec, him 596 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD lack of need because of the end of a Government contract and the 50 girls involved to he pretextuous. Further, the facts reveal later hirings of several new employees. Had Respondent FWG had a question as to lack of need at the time, I am convinced that Griswold would have instructed Smith to tell Sodman and Nalezny of such facts and that they would be called to work later. Later the Respondent shifted to a reason of an "alleged October 1967 changed policy" concerning rehiring of employees off for the summer As indicated, the October 1967 suggested reporting changes did not touch the policy question involved herein. In sum, I am persuaded that the totality of the facts reveals that Respondent FWG discriminatorily considered against employing Sodman and Nalezny because of its belief that they had engaged in union activity, and therefore did not place them back on their jobs Such conduct is violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act.21 I so conclude and find. D. Respondent Dvson-Kissner Corporation, Northwest Automatic Division , successor of :Northwest Automatic Products Corporation The facts reveal that on October 1, 1968, Respondent Dyson-Kissner Corporation. Northwest Automatic Division. became successor to Northwest Automatic Products Corporation. There is no evidence that the corporate enterprise which purchased the assets and business of Northwest Automatic Products Corporation had knowledge of the preexisting unfair labor practices of Northwest Automatic Products Corporation at the exact time of purchase or prior thereto. I do not therefore find it proper to impose on the successor remedial responsibility for such financial obligation as may exist with respect to backpay due to Sodman and Nalezny from September 3, 1968, to October 1. 1968. However, Respondent Dyson-Kissner Corporation, Northwest Automatic Division, successor of Northwest Automatic Products Corporation. continued in effect as the same enterprise as had existed. Griswold and the other supervisors continued their same duties It is clear that such successor therefore had knowledge after October I. 1968, of the preexisting unfair labor practices. of the continuing nature thereof', and of the continuing nature of Sodman's and Nalezny's desire for work. The continuation of such successor enterprise without correction of the unfair labor practices or return to work of Sodman and Nalezny constituted a continuation of the same violative conduct committed by Respondent FWG. Accordingly, I conclude and find that Respondent Dyson-Kissner Corporation, Northwest Automatic Division, successor of Northwest Automatic Products Corporation, has since October 1, 1968, continued to violate Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.22 IV. Till- EFFECT OF THL UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondents set forth in section Ill, above, occurring in connection with the Respondents' operations described m section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. v. THE REMEDY Haling found that Respondents engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it is recommended that they cease and desist therefrom and that they take certain affirmative action of the type which is conventionally ordered in such cases, as provided in the Recommended Order below, which is found necessary to remedy and to remove the effects of the unfair labor practices and to effectuate the policies of the Act. The conventional remedy for discrimination in employment tenure will be recommended except Respondent Dyson-Kissner Corporation, Northwest Automatic Division, successor of Northwest Automatic Products Corporation, will be held financially liable for backpay due Sodman and Nalezny only after October 1, 1968. Respondent FWG will be held financially liable for backpay due Sodman and Nalezny from September 3, 1968, to October 1, 1968, and thereafter will be held jointly and severally liable for backpay due Sodman and Nalezny until time of the reinstatement order required herein. As indicated, and as tailored by the foregoing, having found that Respondents violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) with respect to the discriminatory refusal to employ Lois Nalezny and Geraldine Sodman, it is recommended that Respondents offer Lois Nalezny and Geraldine Sodinan immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions, or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make each of them whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination against each of them, by payment to each a sum of money equal to the difference, if any. between the wages each would have earned absent the discrimination against each of them, and the amount of wages actually earned, if less, from the date of commencement of discrimination (September 3, 1968) to the date of Respondents' offer of reinstatement to each Such backpay shall be computed in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth C'ompativ, 90 NLRB 289. 291-294, and with interest thereon as prescribed by the Board in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co 138 NLRB 716.2' As the unfair labor practices committed by the Respondents were of a character which go to the very heart of' the Act, it is recommended that the Respondents cease and desist therefrom and cease and desist from infringing in any other manner upon the rights of employees guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE) is. and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act 2. FWG Corporation, formerly known as Northwest Automatic Products Corporation, and Dyson-Kissner Corporation, Northwest Automatic Products Division, successor of Northwest Automatic Products Corporation, the Respondents, are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act "Shawnee Industries . Inc . 140 NLRB 141 "Perma Vinyl Corporation . 164 NLRB No 119. Ramada Inns, Inc, 171 NLRB No 115 "The matter of Nalczny's and Sodman s unavailability for work for several days is a matter to he considered in the compliance backpay computations FWG CORPORATION 597 3 By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 4 By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of employees, thereby discouraging membership in or activities on behalf of a labor organization, Respondents engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act 5 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this case, it is recommended that Respondents. their officers, agents, successors, and assigns. shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in or activities on behalf of United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE), or any other labor organization of their employees by discharging or otherwise discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment of any of its employees, 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, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing their employees in the exercise of their right to sell-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and to refrain from any and all such activities, 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, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. - 2 Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Lois Nalezny and Geraldine Sodman immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges (b) Notify Lois Nalezny and Geraldine Sodman 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. (c) Make whole Lois Nalezny and Geraldine Sodman for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them by payment to them of a sum of money equal to their loss of earnings from the date of their discharge to the date of Respondents' offer of reinstatement in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (d) 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. (e) Post at their plant in Minneapolis, Minnesota, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix " Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 18, after being duly signed by the Respondents' representative, shall he posted by the Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and he maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (1) Notify the Regional Director for Region 18, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith 25 IT is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that, excepting for the conduct specifically found to he violative of the Act herein, such other allegations as to conduct violative of the Act be dismissed. "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 " Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondents have taken to i.omply 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. WE WILL offer Lois Nalezny and Geraldine Sodman immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and WE WILL notify Lois Nalezny and Geraldine Sodman 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. WE WILL make whole Lois Nalezny and Geraldine Sodman for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them, all in accord with and in the manner set forth in the "The Remedy" section of this Decision. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activities on behalf of United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE), or any other labor organization of our employees, by discharging or otherwise discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment, 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, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act 598 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of 1959. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to sell -organization , to form, join , or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and to retrain from any and all such activities, 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, as modified by the Labor-Managenncit Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining, members of United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE), or any other labor organization , 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, as modilied by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. Dated By Dated FWG CORPORATION, t ORMERLY KNOWN AS NORTiiWaST AUTOM-&ric PRODUCTS CORPORATION (Employer) (Representative ) (Title) Dy SON-KISSNER CORPORVI ION, NOR1IIWEST ALTOMA1IC DiviSiON, SUCCESSOR OF NORTHWEST AUTOMATIC PRODUCTS CORPORAL ION (Employer) By (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. if employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 316 Federal Building, 110 South hourth Street, Minneapolis. Minnesota 55401, Telephone 612-725-2611.