Luhr Jensen & Sons, Inc.

LUHR JENSON & SONS Luhr Jensen & Sons, Inc. and International Chemical Workers Union Local 109, AFL-CIO. Case 36-CA-1817 June 30, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND ZAGORIA On May 12, 1969, Trial Examiner John P. von Rohr issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, except as modified below. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified below in the margin, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Luhr Jensen & Sons, Inc., Hood River, Oregon, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as so modified.' 475 TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE John P. von Rohr, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge and an amended charge filed on October 17 and November 22, 1968, respectively, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 36 (Seattle, Washington) issued a complaint on November 29, 1968, against Luhr Jensen & Sons, Inc., herein called the Respondent or the Company, alleging that it had discharged employee Geneva Meyers in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 51 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. The Respondent's answer denies the allegation of unlawful conduct alleged in the complaint. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner John P. von Rohr in Hood River, Oregon, on February 4, 1969. All parties were represented by counsel and were afforded opportunity to adduce evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to file briefs. Briefs have been received from the General Counsel and from the Respondent and they have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record in this case and from my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent is an Oregon corporation with its principal office and place of business located in Hood River, Oregon, where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of fishing lures and equipment. During the year preceding the hearing herein, the Respondent sold and shipped goods manufactured at its Hood River plant valued in excess of $50,000 to points and locations outside of the State of Oregon. During the same period it made purchases of goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 which goods and materials were shipped to it from points located outside of the State of Oregon. The Respondent concedes, and I find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Chemical Workers' Union, Local 109, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES 'We note that the Union's organizing campaign began in the spring of 1968, rather than 1967 as stated by Trial Examiner , and, as pointed out by the Respondent, that in In. 4 of his Decision the Trial Examiner reversed the number of ballots challenged by each of the parties, i.e., in fact Respondent challenged one and the Union challenged seven . Furthermore, all references to Dorothy Fahlgren in connection with Meyers' assignment to making "gooey bobs" should have been to Gloria Glascoe . However, these inadvertent errors do not affect the Trial Examiner 's conclusions or our adoption thereof. 'In section IV of his Decision the Trial Examiner recommends, inter aiia, that employee Meyers receive backpay for a period beginning October 18, 1968 . No reason appears, however, why the backpay period should not begin on October 4, 1968 , the date on which she was discharged, as is customary . Accordingly, in computing the amount of loss as required by par. 2(a) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, we hereby order that she be reimbursed for her losses for the period beginning on October 4, 1968. A. The Termination of Geneva Meyers Respondent's plant is located in Hood River, Oregon (population approximately 3,850) where it is principally engaged in the manufacture of artificial baits and fishing lures (Luhr's lures). The officers and principal management of the Company consist of three brothers, Philip, David, and Luhr Jensen. Commencing operations in about 1960 with approximately 20 employees, the Respondent presently employs approximately 125 employees. Geneva Meyers, the alleged discriminatee herein, was hired in Respondent's plastics department as a production employee on December 6, 1967. She was terminated on October 4, 1968. 177 NLRB No. 72 476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Union began an organizing campaign among Respondent's employees in the early spring of 1967. Meyers, Donna Johnson and Gloria Glascoe were the principal three employees to engage in the organizing activities . These employees obtained union authorization cards while accompanying each other visiting the homes of the employees. Meyers credibly testified that together they thus contacted all of the employees , including Barbara Mann . Mann, who refused to sign a card, acted as relief supervisor for Laura Jeffries, the supervisor of the plastics department, on those occasions when Jeffries did not report to work.' A representation election was held on August 2, 1968, a Friday.' Meyers testified without contradiction that Jeffries came up to her on the following Monday and stated, "Well, it got in all right. It's too bad they had to lie and cheat to get in." When Meyers asked who had lied and cheated, Jeffries responded, "Well, do you think it was fair that my vote was challenged?" Meyers thereupon stated, "Yes, there was nothing lying or cheating about it, and I think it was fair since you were running around, terrorizing the girls before the election, and you definitely had something to do with how they voted." The conversation thus terminated with Jeffries making no further response.' Meyers and three other employees (Gloria Glascoe, Gayle Navarett, and Barbara Thrig) testified as union witnesses at a hearing on challenged ballots held on September 11, 1968.' Meyers' testimony, it may be noted, was adverse to the position taken by the Respondent that Jeffries was not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.' Dorothy Fahlgren, an employee in the plastics department, testified that in the afternoon after the close of the hearing she saw Jeffries in the lunchroom and observed that Jeffries "was all shook up" and that something was wrong . She said that she thereupon asked Jeffries what was wrong. According to Fahlgren, Jeffries responded that "she (Jeffries) didn't know what Geneva (Meyers) was doing to her, and that if the Union went through, the boys would fire her." Jeffries did not deny making the foregoing statement to Fahlgren and from my observation it appeared that Fahlgren truthfully testified concerning this conversation.' Accordingly, I credit her testimony concerning it. Meyers was terminated on October 4, 1968 . Two other employees who worked in the plastics department (Janet Walters and Bonita Minor) were laid off at the same time. Meyers testified that she was working alongside these employees when Phil Jensen came up and stated that the three of them were being laid off because work was running low . Jensen agreed that he spoke to the three employees at the same time but testified that he first 'As more fully dealt with in a succeeding section, I find that Jeffries, contrary to Respondent's contention, is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. The tally of ballots reflect that there were 42 votes cast for the Union, 37 against the Union, and 8 challenged ballots There were at this time a total of 99 eligible voters 'It is difficult to see where this conversation adds anything to the General Counsel's case While he does not contend any violation of Sec. 8(a)(l), neither do I regard any of Jeffnes comments in this conversation as reflecting union animus by the Respondent. The Respondent challenged the ballots of seven voters, the Union of one. 'Although the objections testimony of the other employees was not introduced in evidence, as was Meyers', it may be presumed that their testimony also was adverse to the Respondent. 'In fact, Jeffries, although called as a Respondent witness, did not allude to or testify at all concerning this conversation with Fahlgren advised Walters and Minor, who had worked for the Company only for 4-6 weeks, that they were being laid off because they had been hired for a specific project (the making of Alaskan plugs) and that this project had now been completed. However, Jensen testified that shortly thereafter he told Meyers that "her layoff was more of a termination nature because she did talk too much, couldn't get along, couldn't fit in, and her production was very low."' In view of the alleged discrimination against Meyers, it is relevant to note here that at the time of Meyers' termination on October 4 the Respondent retained at least 10 employees in the plastics department who had less seniority than Meyers. Thus, Meyers testified without contradiction that there were only five employees in the plastics department, including himself, at the time when she was hired in December 1967, and that there were approximately 20 girls working in the plastics department at the time of her termination.' Since 5 employees left Respondent's employee on October 4 (these include the three who were terminated, plus two who quit on the same day) it is clear that Meyers had greater seniority than 10 of the employees who were retained.' B. The Rehire of Meyers Within a week or two following Meyers' discharge the Union advised Respondent that it would file unfair labor practices unless she was restored to her job. Phil Jensen testified that in order to avoid this problem it was decided that she be called back to work. Pursuant to such notice, Meyers reported to the plant on October 16. However, Meyers, who had previously worked on the day shift, at this time was told that she was to work on the night shift. She was also advised that another employee, Wanda Scheer, had been transferred to the night shift so that she could ride with Scheer. Scheer, however, resided just on the other side of the bridge which crosses the Columbia River whereas Meyers resided approximately another 10 miles beyond this point. Meyers testified that the road to her home was curved and hilly and that she was reluctant to drive it alone at night during the winter. Accordingly, Meyers advised Jensen that she would let him know the next day if she would accept the offer to work on the night shift. That evening Meyers consulted with Tom Drew, the union representative, and was advised by him not to accept the job. She accepted this advice and the next day advised Jensen that she would not work on the night shift but that she wished to be restored to the day shift. The Union filed an unfair labor practice charge on Meyers' behalf on October 17, 1968. Phil Jensen testified that some time thereafter his attorney advised him that the charge would be dropped if he put Meyers back on the 'In view of Jensen' s testimony, it may be assumed that Meyers' termination in fact was a discharge rather than a layoff The plastics department was located next to Respondent's main building when Meyers was first hired This department was later moved to a downtown building Meyers testified that there were five employees in the plastics department before the move. Although Jeffries testified that there were nine employees in this department before the move, she did not refute Meyers' testimony that Meyers was one of five employees in the plastics department when Meyers was first hired, nor did she or any other Respondent witness refute Meyers' testimony that there were approximately 20 employees in the plastics department on October 4, 1968 'Although Meyers testified that there were five employees, including herself, when she first started, it undoubtedly appears that she was the fifth employee to be hired in the plastics department LUHR JENSON & SONS 477 day shift. Meyers was rehired on the day shift on December 3, 1968. Jensen testified, "We put her back to work on the good faith that the suit would then be dropped and we wouldn't have to go to this expense and bother." Meyers worked on the day shift for 5 days making lead cinches." Although she had never performed this job before, Meyers testified without contradiction that Jeffries told her she was doing very well in this work. However, after working on cinches for 5 days Meyers was transferred to the job of making gooey bobs, this a lure made of plastic. The record leaves no doubt that this is the most undesirable of all production jobs in Respondent's plant. The production of this item is confined to a separate room and since only one employee is involved in this operation , this employee must work alone. Basically a baking operation, the employee must first mix powder and oil and pour the mixture into a mold. The mold is then placed in an oven and baked at 600 degrees. The material is inflammable and on occasion catches on fire when removed from the oven ." The room in which this operation is performed is frequently pervaded by smoke and fumes and a strong and unpleasant odor prevails . It is undisputed that the reason given to Meyers for her transfer to this job was that Dorothy Fahlgren, the girl who regularly performed this work , would be off on a 1 week vacation. However, Fahlgren was also experienced in the making of Alaskan plugs. Jensen testified that there was an increased demand for this product and that therefore Fahlgren was assigned to this job when she returned from vacation. Accordingly, Meyers was kept on the gooey bob job and has remained in this position as of the time of the hearing. C. Respondent's Defense: Conclusions During the 10-month period prior to her termination on October 4, 1968, Meyers was principally engaged in the jobs of bagging cinches and snubbers, and stringing egg drifters. It is undisputed that these were routine jobs and required relatively little skill. As heretofore indicated, five girls were terminated from Respondent's employ on October 4, 1968. 12 In view of Jensen's unrefuted testimony that at this time there was a seasonal slack in work, it may be assumed that Respondent had legitimate cause to lay off five employees in the Plastics Department at this time. The question remains, however, whether Respondent's selection of Meyers to be included in the layoffs was motivated solely by legitimate considerations. Phil Jensen cited several reasons for Meyers' termination the first of which was that her production was low. Indeed, at one point Jensen testified , "Her rate of production was much less - I would say as much as fifty per cent less than the people that worked with her, and the ones that worked alongside of her . . ." Even if it be assumed that Meyers was somewhat of a slow worker, I am convinced that this testimony was a gross exaggeration of the fact. For one thing , it is undisputed that Respondent did not keep production records of the "Meyers described this product as a small rubber tube filled with lead which has a swivel attached to it. "Meyers described the operation further as follows: "Then, you have to pick that die up, holding It away from you because its hot. It's a hot, sticky, bubbly liquid, which keeps spitting at you, and when it cools, you remove it from the die, clean the die, and start over again . You have two dies and you just continue with them." "In addition to Meyers these include the lay off of two other girls and two quits. employees' work in the plastics department prior to Meyers' discharge. Accordingly, there is no objective evidence in this record pertaining to Meyers' production prior to her termination." Jensen testified that he spent a good deal of time in the production department and that his assessment of Meyers' work output was based upon his personal observation. Such observation, he testified, "was substantiated by observations of many other people." He did not, however, elaborate by identifying the other people or by relating any reports he had received from them concerning Meyers. While I shall hereinafter have further comment with respect to Meyers' alleged low production, it is significant to note here that the evidence reveals there to be only one occasion during Meyers' employment when she was actually given any warning concerning her production. This occurred about 2 weeks after the election when Jensen had Jeffries tell Meyers that he did not think she was working fast enough and that "we're going to have to watch you for the next couple of weeks and see if you can't speed up your work." In the afternoon of the same day, however, Jensen spoke to Jeffries again, following which Jeffries told Meyers, "Phil said it looks like your speeding up your work now, I think everything is going to be all right." Meyers credibly testified that she never received any further criticism of her work. Although Respondent permits employees to talk to each other while working, Jensen testified that when Meyers talked she talked with her hands and that this would interfere with her work. Jensen and Jeffries also testified that Meyers would talk about such subjects as "reincarnation" and that this would be disturbing to other girls. Although Jeffries testified that three girls asked to be moved from Meyers vicinity for this reason, she could not recall whether she reported this to Jensen. Accordingly, it is doubtful Jensen took this into account at the time he determined Meyers be discharged. Jensen also testified that he observed Meyers to slump in her chair rather than to sit up straight while working and that he spoke to her about this on several occasions . Assuming this to be true, I could scarcely regard this as a serious warning. Indeed, much of Jensen's testimony concerning Meyers' alleged deficiencies was of such a generalized and rambling nature that I am constrained to given it little weight. For example, when asked if he could relate any specific occasion when he spoke to Meyers' about her alleged work deficiencies, Jensen responded as follows: I think pretty specifically - well, reasonable specifically I remember because I - it's kind of a general thing. I say this to lots of girls. I would perhaps watch them for a moment or two and then come up and I'd come down rather quietly beside them, kneel down and, talk to them, because it's not - I had no reason to em6arass them in front of their fellow workers, and I would ask them - generally, I would say, "Please," to see if she can't sit upright and take more of an interest in her work and talk a little less, and in this way, without any more effort, get up her production. In testifying as to his reasons for discharging Meyers, Jensen gave as a further and final reason that "she was ""I have considered the conclus,onary testimony of Laddie Leminger, a maintenance man and a Respondent witness, that Meyers ' work was slow, as well as similar conclusionary testimony by Donna Johnson, a General Counsel witness, who testified that Meyers' work was "real good" and that she was "real steady." However, and particularly in view of the other evidence in this case, I do not rely on the aforesaid opinion testimony of either of these witnesses 478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD fairly unreliable in her work attendance" and that she had "a very spotty record" in this regard. Concerning Meyers' alleged excessive absenteeism , the only evidence put in by Respondent consisted of a reading into the record the dates on which Meyers did not report to work during her first tenure of employment. However, the General Counsel established on rebuttal that with possibly three or four exceptions these absences either occurred on holidays or were the result of Meyers being ill. Thus, the record reflects as follows: Meyers was absent 3 days in April, 2 of which were due to illness; she was absent May 30 and 31, both of which were regarded by Respondent as holidays;" absent on July 5, a Friday (see fn. 14); absent on July 20 and 27; absent on August 14; absent for about a week in September (for which she was excused) due to dental surgery. Later in his testimony Jensen conceded that he did not know if Meyer had a greater absentee record than the other employees and he finally testified." "I wasn' t trying to make too much of an issue of [Meyers'] absentee record, although it is part of - one facet of the overall thing." Turning to my conclusions, I first of all conclude and find that the General Counsel, in his presentation of the evidence, established a prima facie case that Respondent's selection of Meyers for termination was violative of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act. Thus, the evidence reflects that Meyers actively solicited for the Union by visiting the homes of all of Respondent' s production employees, including that of the relief supervisor, for the purpose of soliciting union authorization cards . She also openly discussed the union with other employees at the plant. In view of the extent of this activity, the smallness of the community, as well as the smallness of the plant itself, I think it can be safely surmised that Meyers' organizational activities came to Respondent' s attention. Apart from the foregoing, Meyers subsequently testified in a hearing before the Board . That Respondent resented Meyers' participation therein as a union witness is clearly reflected in Jeffries' statement to employee Fahlgren that she (Jeffries) did not- know what Meyers was doing to her but that "the boys" would fire Meyers if the union got in. When this is considered with the fact that Meyers was terminated in a layoff which occurred but 3 weeks later, notwithstanding the fact that she had seniority over 10 other employees in the same department, a persuasive case has been made that Meyers was discharged for her substantial union activity. As to Respondent's case, I am impelled to find that the testimony offered by it in support of its assertion that Meyers was discharged for the alleged work deficiencies does not stand up under scrutiny. In the absence of production records, I find it incredible to believe Jensen's assertion that Meyers' production was 50 percent less than the employees who worked with her. If this were the case, it may reasonably be assumed that she would have been terminated long prior to the lay off on October 4, 1968. Indeed, the record reflects that she was given only one warning concerning her work. This came 2 weeks after the election and in effect was retracted before the day was over. Respondent also cited excessive absenteeism as a reason for the discharge . As has been noted, that this was but an afterthought was in effect conceded by Jensen when it was brought out later in the hearing that Meyers in fact was not excessively absent and "Thus, Meyers testified without contradiction that Respondent's policy was to permit its employees, if they wish, to take a day off on any Friday that follows a holiday . May 31 was a Friday which followed May 30, Memorial Day. there was no evidence to show that her record was any better or worse than any of the other employees. There is yet a further facet of Jensen's testimony which gives me serious doubt as to the believability of his entire testimony concerning his asserted reasons for Meyers' discharge. Thus, it will be recalled that on October 16, 1968, Meyers was offered a job on the night shift. It is undisputed that at this time two girls worked on this shift. One operated a plastic machine, the other a sonic welder. According to Jensen, Meyers was not qualified to perform either of these operations. Yet he testified on direct examination, and repeated this testimony on cross-examination, that Meyers was offered a job on the evening shift because "she could at least be there and be company to the people that were running that evening shift."" Without belaboring the point further, it would strain one's credibility to believe that Respondent would compensate Meyers, or any employee, merely for the purpose of standing by and keeping company with other employees while they were working. In sum, and even assuming that Meyers had certain shortcomings as an employee," for the reasons stated above I conclude and find that Meyers' discharge on October 4, 1968, was in substantial part prompted by Meyers' union activity and the fact that she testified as a union witness at the Board hearing on challenged ballots." Accordingly, I find that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act. D. The Supervisory Status of Laura Jeffries Although Jeffries and 10 other employees were officially named supervisors by the Respondent in October 1968, Respondent contends that only the three Jensen brothers were supervisors within the meaning of the Act at the times material hereto." During the summer of 1968, Respondent employed approximately 115 production employees, these including a minimum of 14 up to a maximum of 27 employees in the Plastics Department. Respondent concedes that Luhr Jensen, although an officer of the Company, does not engage in any supervision of the production employees. Although Phil Jensen testified that David Jensen "on many occasions" gives orders to the employees, the record does not disclose where he is located in the plant. Phil Jensen is Respondent' s sales manager and treasurer. Although he travels on occasion, the majority of his time "Although he vaguely qualified this by stating that the machine would have to be operated if one of the girls were absent, he continued to insist that, "I didn't say she [Meyers] was going to run the machine because, in fact, she can't run the machine " "As an indication that Meyers was able to perform reasonably well when assigned to a new job, the record reflects that during the 5 days after her rehire when she worked on the day shift making lead cinches, her production increased from 23 dozen on Monday to 43 dozen on Friday As previously noted, Jeffries at this time told Meyers that she was doing "very well " Indeed, Phil Jensen testified, "Most all of the girls coming in to the [plastics] department are able to do most all of the jobs. Some can't do any " Moreover, although Jensen testified that Meyers still had not reached the production norm of Gloria Glascoe in the making of gooey bobs (he said she was up to 90 percent of Glascoe's production), he testified ". it's heartening that Geneva is trying very hard, and she's doing better " "Although two other employees who testified were not discharged, it is well settled that the retention of some union adherents does not exculpate Respondent for discrimination against others N L R.B v. W C Nabors Company, 196 F 2d 272, 276 (C A 5) " The official changes referred to above occurred subsequent to the discharge of Meyers on October 4, 1968 LUHR JENSON & SONS is spent at the plant . Phil testified that he gives orders directly to employees, although usually he does this through Jeffries, and that prior to Meyers' termination he spent considerable time in the Plastics Department. However, as he testified, while in the Plastics Department. he was primarily engaged in a project devoted to the development of new plugs and lures. Jeffries did not, during the times material hereto, participate in the hiring or termination of employees, this being the function of David and Phil Jensen. It is undisputed, however, that Jeffries assigns work to the employees, directs them in their work, has authority to transfer employees from one job to another within the Plastics Department, and has authority to grant employees time off from work." Significantly, it is also evident that Jeffries had authority to warn employees. Thus, it will be recalled that on one occasion Jeffries told Meyers that she was not working fast enough." In view of the foregoing, r conclude and find that Jeffries possessed authority to responsibly direct the employees in the Plastics Department and that she therefore was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. Moreover, since Phil and David Jensen at the times material hereto are alleged by Respondent to be the only supervisors in a plant of over 100 employees, an abnormally high ratio of employees to supervisors would exist if Jeffries were not found to be a supervisor.2i I am convinced that Jeffries performed this function in the plastics department. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, which occurred in connection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act by its discharge of Geneva Meyers, I will recommend that Respondent offer her immediate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of earnings she may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against her, by payment to her of a sum of money equal to that which she normally would have earned as wages from October 18, 1968, to the date of her reinstatement on December 3, 1968 ,=' less her net earnings during such period, with backpay and interest thereon to be computed in a manner prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. "Jeffries testified that when the girls came up and asked to take time off she usually told them to "call up the office and tell them " However, it was the credited and unrefuted testimony of employee Dorothy Fahlgren that she would ask permission of Jeffries when she wanted time off. "As previously noted, this warning was relayed from Phil Jensen through Jeffries. I doubt whether Jensen would have given these instructions to Jeffries if Jeffries were just an ordinary employee "Applied Research, Inc., 138 NLRB 870. "It appears that Meyers received the same wage rate when she was rehired on December 3. However , having found that within 5 days of her rehire she was assigned to a less desirable job (the making of gooey bobs) the above recommendation contemplates that she be offered a job on the day shift in the plastics department. 479 Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Luhr Jensen & Sons, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. International Chemical Workers Union Local 109, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discriminating with respect to the hire and tenure of employment of Geneva Meyers, thereby discouraging membership in the above-named labor organization, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (4) of the Act. 4. By the foregoing conduct, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this case, it is recommended that Respondent, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in or activities on behalf of International Chemical Workers Union Local 109, AFL-CIO, by laying off, discharging, or in any other manner discriminating against its employees with respect to their hire, tenure, or any other term or condition of employment, because of their union activities or because they gave testimony under the Act. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Geneva Meyers immediate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of earnings she may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against her in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports and all other records necessary to determine the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order. (c) Post at its plant in Hood River, Oregon, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said "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 " 480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 26, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent, shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to its employees are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the said Regional Director , in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." "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 the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activities on behalf of International Chemical Workers' Union, Local 109, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discharging or laying off any of our employees or in any other manner discriminating against our employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL offer to Geneva Meyers immediate and ful reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of earnings suffered as a result of the discrimination against her. All our employees are free to become , remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining members of the above-named or any other labor organization. Dated By LUHR J ENSEN & SONS, INC. (Employer) (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board' s Regional Office, 746 Federal Office Building, 167 North Main Street, Memphis, Tennessee 38103, Telephone 901-534-3161.