M R Products, Inc.

118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD M R Products, Inc. and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW. Case 7-CA-7184 October 14, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , AND ZAGORIA On July 30, 1969, Trial Examiner Arthur M. Goldberg 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, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision in which it stated its reason for the exceptions, and the Charging Party filed an answer to Respondent's exceptions. 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 Respondent's exceptions, the Charging Party's answer thereto, and the entire record in this proceeding, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommendations. 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 herein, and hereby orders that the Respondent, M R Products, Inc., Troy, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as so modified: Add the following as paragraph 2(b), and reletter the following paragraphs accordingly: "(b) Notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of her 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." TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION ARTHUR M. GOLDBERG, Trial Examiner Based upon a charge filed on February 20, 1969,' by the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW (herein called the Union or the Charging Party), the complaint herein issued on April 18 alleging that M R Products, Inc. (herein called the Company, M R, or the Respondent),, violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein called the Act). The alleged 8(a)(1) conduct consisted of coercive interrogation of employees concerning their union membership and activities and threats of loss of employment and less desirable working conditions if the employees did not refrain from union activity The putative 8(a)(3) violation consisted of the assignment of Rena Camire to allegedly more arduous and dangerous work which caused her to end her employment with the Company. Respondent denied all material allegations of the complaint. All parties participated in the hearing in Detroit, Michigan, on June 4 and 5, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to introduce evidence, to examine witnesses, and to present oral argument. General Counsel presented oral argument on the record and Respondent filed a brief. Based upon the entire record in the case, my reading of the Respondent's brief, and from my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The complaint alleged, the answer admitted, and I find that M R Products, Inc , a Michigan corporation with its only office and place of business in the city of Troy, Michigan, is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of plastic products and related products. During a representative 12-month period ending December 31, 1968, Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, manufactured, sold, and shipped from its Troy, Michigan, plant, products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the State of Michigan. The Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and meets the Board's standards for the assertion of its jurisdiction. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Events of February 4 Respondent is a fabricator of plastic parts. The Union embarked on an effort to organize Respondent's employees on February 4 when two organizers appeared 'Unless otherwise noted all dates herein were in 1969 'Respondent's name appears as corrected at the hearing 179 NLRB No. 17 M R PRODUCTS at the plant and attempted to distribute leaflets to the employees. The evidence as to Respondent's reaction when the organizers appeared is in sharp dispute. However, as the complaint is silent as to the actions of the parties while this handbilling was taking place, I do not deem it necessary to resolve this conflict It is manifest, however, that the Company strongly resented the organizing effort. The nature of Respondent's operation requires that its machines operate around the clock. Three shifts of employees are utilized, the first working from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m., the second shift scheduled from 3 p.m. to 11 p.m., and the night shift working from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. Contrary to his usual procedure, Michael Russo, Respondent's president, was at the plant when the night shift reported at 11 p.m. on February 4. Rena Camire testified that when she asked Night Foreman John Moore why Russo was there that night, Moore replied that Russo had said he was having trouble with the Union which had been around passing out literature. Moore then went on to express his opinion that Respondent's employees did not need a union, explaining that there was no discrimination or prejudice at the Company and that if the plant were organized the employees would lose their privilege to smoke and sit on stools while working, as well as their Christmas bonus and party. Further, Camire testified, Moore stated that the Union would not raise the employees' pay. Moore testified that the employees, Camire among them, wondered why Russo was at the plant that night Moore stated that after explaining to Camire that Russo had been at the plant because of the union activity earlier that day he went on to compare conditions at the Company with those at a union organized plant at which he had previously worked Moore testified that he had told Camire that at his former place of employment the employees had not been allowed to sit while working, or to smoke or drink soda pop on the job, benefits which they enjoyed at M R. The complaint alleged' that on February 4 Moore warned that "employees would lose their bonuses, and certain other benefits such as smoking and having stools at their machines" as a result of union activity. I so find. I do not credit Moore's version of his conversation with Camire Based on my observation of Camire and Moore while testifying before me as well as the pattern of threats with which I find Respondent responded to the Union's appearance,' I credit Camire's testimony that Moore, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, coupled with his list of present employee benefits, issued a warning that these would be lost if the Union succeeded in organizing Respondent's employees.' 'Par 8(b) 'See sec III, B, below 'Employee Elise May Quick testified that on either February 4 or 5 Foreman Frank Bartlett , while talking to a group of three employees, brought up the Union and stated that it would probably cost the employees $1,000 a year Quick stated that the employees laughed at Bartlett's remarks, because "we figured with what we were making , we didn't even make that much " Bartlett, who testified under sedation made necessary by an in-plant accident, denied having had such a conversation This incident was not alleged in the complaint as a violation of the Act Accordingly, I do not deem it necessary to resolve the conflict between Quick and Bartlett In any event, I would not find a violation of the Act based on the "puffing" remark attributed to Bartlett by Quick Mrs Baird's Bread, Dallas, 171 NLRB No 26 119 B The Events of February 5 Former employee Kathleen Jones and Eleanor Jonas, who had worked for Respondent as a supervisor, testified that on February 5, the day after the Union first appeared at Respondent's plant, they were called to Russo's office where he talked to them about the Union. Jones testified that Russo first asked how she felt about the Union and after she explained why the employees favored organization, Russo, who was holding one of the union handbills, stated that the Union was not needed and that it would not do all it had promised in its leaflets Russo told Jones that he did not want the Union and would sell out if the Union succeeded in organizing the plant After telling Jones that she would be transferred from her job in the shipping department to machine work if the Union came in, Russo gave his opinion on the cost to the employees of union initiation fees and dues. Russo then told Jones, who is a Negro, that he was an equal opportunity employer, that he had hired "colored people" and that he had been raised by a "colored woman." Then Russo asked Jones about a preacher to whom he wished to make a donation. Further, Jones testified, Russo stated that if the Union came in the workers would not be able to smoke or drink pop at the machines and that it would stop the Christmas bonuses and party Russo told Jones that he had filled out papers to be filed with the government for a profit-sharing plan and the Union would stop that as well. Russo told Jones that one company for whom he worked had called and said that they had heard the Union was at M R and if the Union organized Respondent, they would pull out their molds, leading to a cut in the workweek down to 2 or 3 days. Russo stated that Jim Robbins, another company for whom M R did work, would probably take away their molds as well., Former Company Supervisor Eleanor Jonas testified that on February 5 Russo called the employees to the office in order of their seniority. After asking if Jonas had seen the union paper and card he was holding Russo asked why the employees thought it was necessary to have a union, explaining that he had always made it a policy that people could bring their grievances to his office at any time and talk them out with him. Russo told Jonas that he did not want a union and would have to take away all bonuses and the Christmas party as well as the profit-sharing plan he was putting into effect at the time. Jonas testified that Russo asked if she knew which of the girls had signed union cards and if she would give him that information. Jonas stated that she said she would not do that. Russo then said he would learn who had signed for the Union because someone at the Union would give him that information as well as advising him if any of the girls were union organizers. Jonas testified that Russo then said that one firm for which M R worked had called and when he told them of the "union episode" had said they would pull out their molds because they could not afford to have the molds lie idle while "the scrape" was going on. Russo also told Jonas that the prices he had quoted to Jim Robbins had been without the Union and if the Union came in it could not help any of the employees.' 'Jones testified that on the Friday following the February 5 session she asked to see Russo because she understood that Russo had told her supervisor that he felt Jones was a union organizer On this occasion Russo told Jones that he did not know for sure but that someone had overheard Jones talking union talk and had reported this to him 'Jonas was not cross-examined on this testimony and Respondent totally ignored her testimony in its brief 120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Russo testified on both the first and second days of the trial On the first day Russo testified that he had talked to Kathleen Jones on two occasions in February when she asked to see him His first session with Jones, Russo stated, was on February 19 when she asked Russo for his opinion of the Union. Russo replied that he did not think a union was needed at M R Jones then asked if she could get more money To this Russo testified he told Jones she would have to leave shipping to earn more pay. The second conversation was a month later when Jones told Russo and David Duncan, her foreman, that if she could not get more money in shipping she would return to machine work after her vacation Russo further testified that Eleanor Jonas had told him that Jones was rumored to be an organizer for the Union and when Jones came to him to discuss this report, he had told her that he didn't care and that any way she wanted to go was perfectly all right with him. The last exchange was alleged to have occurred during the first conversation On resuming the stand on the second day of the hearing Russo amended his testimony to place the first conversation with Kathleen Jones in his office on February 9, rather than the 19th.8 At that time, Russo testified, Jones said that she had been told that Russo thought she was a union organizer, and she wanted to set the record straight that she was not Russo stated that he told her that he did not care "either way." It was during this February 9 conversation that Jones asked for more money Shipping Foreman David Duncan, who testified before Russo, placed the time when Jones asked to see Russo in April At that time, Duncan testified, Jones told him she had asked to go back to machine operation so that she could earn more money. Kathleen Jones impressed me as a credible witness who was earnestly recounting the events as they occurred. Moreover, nothing in her version of the events of February 5 and the following Friday gives me occasion to doubt its accuracy While I make no finding of violation based on Eleanor Jonas' account of her conversation with Russo because of her supervisory status, her credible testimony convincingly corroborates Jones. Based on my observation of Russo as a witness at the hearing herein I am not persuaded of his reliability as a witness. Accordingly, I do not credit his testimony except insofar as it is corroborated by credible witnesses or constitutes admissions contrary to his own or Respondent's interests Duncan's account of a conversation with Jones in April concerning her desire to transfer to machine work does not lend support to Russo who claimed his talks with Jones both took place in February. Accordingly, I find that on February 5, Russo interrogated Jones concerning her union sympathy, threatened loss of benefits if the Union were successful, and warned that the plant would shut down in whole or part if organized by the Union, all in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. C. Rena Camire 1. Camire's employment history Rena Camire at the time of the events herein was in her second period of employment with the Respondent having returned to the Company on November 13, 1968 Camire had previously worked for the Respondent for a 'February 9, 1969, was a Sunday period of 2-1/2 to 3 months before going on a leave of absence in March 1968. Prior to Camire's return to the Company's employ her sister, Pat Ambrose, obtained and filled out an employment application for Camire. On this application Ambrose listed herself as a friend rather than as Camire's sister. The record contains evidence of a company policy against hiring relatives of presently employed workers for the same shift. As there is no evidence that Ambrose consulted Camire prior to listing this misinformation on the application form I do not deem Camire's credibility to be damaged in any way by this incident 2. The twin injector Sometime in 1968 the Company installed a new piece of equipment known as the twin injector. This machine runs two jobs at the same time Russo testified that the twin injector is used on about four different jobs but on only one, for which the twin injector is used about 10 days a month, is an operator required At all other times the machine runs automatically without an operator assigned thereto John Moore, the midnight shift foreman, testified that when the twin injector is run manually, i e , with an operator assigned, the run is for a number of days at a time and a different operator is assigned to the machine each night. The twin injector is acknowledged to be an easy machine to operate and Camire testified that some employees seek assignment to the twin injector because of the ease in operation. Sometime in November 1968, on the midnight shift, an employee named Irene Zehaloski was injured when the heated plastic in the twin injector shot out of the machine and burned her face. Camire was at work at the time of the accident. In addition to Zehaloski, another employee was injured when she inserted her hand into the machine and Frank Bartlett, supervisor of the afternoon shift, was injured when he slipped on oil which had leaked from a faulty hydraulic line on the twin injector. 3 Camire and the twin injector Frank Bartlett testified that on the night of the accident to Zehaloski, Camire told him that she would never run the twin injector again. Camire testified that she feared the twin injector because of the accident to Zehaloski She testified that from the time of the accident in November until the beginning of January, when John Moore succeeded Frank Bartlett as midnight shift foreman, she was not required to run the twin injector even as a relief operator On each shift two employees are assigned to floorwork. When so assigned the floorgirl relieves machine operators so that they may take their two 10-minute breaks and 20-minute lunch period Camire testified that after Moore became midnight shift foreman she informed him of her fear of the twin injector and that Moore told her not to worry, she would not have to run the twin injector as She was doing all right on the other machines. Thereafter, while Moore did assign Camire to floorwork, which Moore testified required Camire to run the twin injector as a relief operator three or four times, he did not assign her to operate the twin injector for a full shift until the night of February 17. Moore testified that when Camire ran the twin injector on relief "she was just scared of it She was still afraid it was going to jump up and bite her or something " M R PRODUCTS On January 22 Moore assigned Pat Ambrose, Camire's sister to run the twin injector for the full shift. Ambrose refused to run the machine and was discharged because of her refusal. After Ambrose was discharged Camire told Moore that she would not run the twin injector However, subsequent to Ambrose's discharge, Camire was assigned to floorwork and ran the twin injector as a relief operator On one occasion, when Moore was not at work, Dave Duncan filled in for him as midnight shift foreman Duncan assigned Camire to the twin injector and she refused to operate the machine for the shift Duncan then reassigned Camire and, when he told Moore of the incident the following day, Duncan told Moore he had not enforced his order to Camire because he was just filling in 4 Camire signs a union card Camire testified that when she left work on February 14 at 7 am she received union literature and an authorization card from organizers then at the plant Camire took the card home and talked to her husband about signing Camire's husband told her that she could not be fired for signing a union card and said she should mail it in Camire testified that when she reported for work on the night of February 14, Moore, contrary to his usual custom, went from machine to machine talking to the girls. Camire stated that Moore asked her what she thought of the Union and she replied that she was all for it, telling Moore of her conversation with her husband and his comment that she could not be fired for signing. Camire told Moore that she was going to sign a card. Moore's reply to this was "We'll see," and he walked away Moore denied that Camire had told him that she had signed a union card and he disputed as well Camire's entire testimony concerning the incident on the night of February 14 Moore testified that he had no knowledge whatsoever of Camire's union activity or "of any union activity " Moore's denial of knowledge of any union activity is clearly contrary to the facts As earlier noted, on February 4 Russo advised Moore of the Union's organizational campaign and I have heretofore found that on the night of February 4 Moore threatened Camire with loss of benefits if the Union's campaign were successful I credit Camire's version of the events of February 14 and find that on that night Camire told Moore she had signed a card for the Union 5 The events of February 17 Under the procedure followed by the Company in assignment of production employees to various operations in the plant, the foreman places the worker on the task assigned at the start of each shift. On February 17, the first work shift following Camire and Moore's conversation on February 14 when she informed him that she was signing a union card, there were between 9 and I 1 employees available for assignment. After Moore had placed the other girls on various machines he told Camire to run the twin injector She told the foreman that she couldn't run the machine because she was afraid of it Camire testified that Moore told her to run the machine anyway and she repeated that she could not do so, adding that the only reason he was doing this was to get rid of her. Camire testified that Moore replied, "You catch on 121 fast" and walked away Thereafter Camire spoke to fellow employee Joan Goff saying that she had been assigned to the twin injector which she was afraid to operate and therefore was going home. Goff testified that the following day Camire told her that she would not be back to work Moore's testimony does not vary substantially from Camire's version of the events Moore added that when Camire repeated her refusal to operate the twin injector he told her she would either run the machine or he was going to send her home Camire's reply, Moore stated, was that he was doing the same thing to her that he had done to her sister, Pat Ambrose Moore testified that he walked away after telling her that she was being sent home for refusing to operate the twin injector However, Moore controverted that part of Camire's testimony in which she had claimed that he was assigning her to the twin injector as a device to get rid of her and that he had replied, "You catch on fast " Frank Bartlett, the second shift foreman who was still in the plant at the time of the exchange between Camire and Moore testified that Moore had told Camire that she was to run the machine or to go home Russo testified that foremen have complete charge of their shifts and are instructed to rotate the girls each day so that no one employee has a hard job day after day, although Russo stated "there are some exceptions to this rule " Russo explained that foremen have the complete right to fire an employee for lack of respect, absenteeism, "or unwillingness to work on machines or for lot of reasons " Moore acknowledged that he had not asked Camire to run the twin injector for an entire shift before February 17, explaining that "other girls were running it " At another point Moore stated that there was no reason that he had not assigned Camire to the twin injector before February 17 and that he had put her on that task that night because he "just felt it was her turn, that's all " Moore testified that when he assigned Camire to run the twin injector he knew she would refuse to run the machine 6. Conclusions and findings Admittedly, Moore knew on February 17 that when he assigned Camire to the twin injector she would refuse to operate the machine Further, it was company policy, as demonstrated by the discharge of Ambrose, to terminate employees who refused to carry out assignments given to' them by their foremen at the start of a shift Russo testified that the twin injector was operated manually approximately 10 times each month Assuming that the accident to Zehaloski occurred in the latter part of November (the record is silent as to the exact date) and accepting Russo's testimony as to the monthly operation of the machine there would have been need for manual operation of the twin injector approximately 20 shifts between the time of Zehaloski's accident when Camire first stated her intention to refuse to operate the machine and February 17 when Moore first assigned her to the twin injector With a work force of 9 to I I employees on the midnight shift under ordinary circumstances Camire would have been required to take a full shift on the twin injector at least two times prior to February 17 1 conclude therefore that Camire's testimony that Moore had told her she would not be required to operate the twin injector was accurate and that until she advised him on February 14 of her adherence to the Union Moore had excused Camire from her regular turn on the twin injector. 122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The General Counsel argues that the twin injector is an "abnormally dangerous" machine and that Camire's refusal to operate the twin injector should be excused under the provisions of Section 502 of the Act ' I do not deem it necessary to reach the question raised by General Counsel as to whether the twin injector is in fact an abnormally dangerous machine. The issue presented is not that of the nature of the machine itself but rather that of Camire's reaction to the piece of equipment. It is manifest that Camire was frightened of the twin injector and had broadcast her intention to refuse an assignment to operate the twin injector for a full shift. In the circumstances of Respondent's open opposition to the Union, the threats to the employees by Respondent of loss of benefits and employment opportunity in the event of a successful union campaign and the juxtaposition of Moore's assignment of Camire to the twin injector on February 17, and her advice to him on the immediately preceding workday that she had joined the Union, I find that Moore assigned Camire to the twin injector on February 17 with the knowledge that she would refuse the assignment because of her fear of the machine, that this assignment was contrary to his having excused her from operating the twin injector prior to her adherence to the Union, and that this assignment was made for the intention of terminating her employment pursuant to the company policy of firing workers who refused assignments 11 Accordingly, I find that on February 17 Moore assigned Camire to the twin injector for the purpose of driving her into an involuntary quit because of her union adherence and that the termination of her employment constituted a constructive discharge, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act N L R B v. Tennessee Packers, Inc., Frosty Morn Div , 339 F.2d 203, 204-205 (C A 6) " IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the Respondent's operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and 'It reads as follows Saving Provision Sec 502 Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require an individual employee to render labor or service without his consent, nor shall anything in this Act be construed to make the quitting of his labor by an individual employee an illegal act, nor shall any court issue any process to compel the performance by an individual employee of such labor or service, without his consent, nor shall the quitting of labor by an employee or employees in good faith because of abnormally dangerous conditions for work at the place of employment of such employee or employees be deemed a strike under this Act "The Respondent contends that Camire was not discharged Rather, the Company argues that she voluntarily quit her job Some weeks earlier Ambrose, Camire's sister, had been discharged for refusing to operate the twin injector Moore testified that when he insisted that Camire run the machine she commented that he was doing the same thing to her as he had done to her sister, for the same reason It seems clear that on February 17 both Camire and Moore were aware that her refusal to run the twin injector meant discharge "On February 28 and March I Russo delivered a speech to the employees which had been prepared for him by Respondent's attorney In that speech Russo stated , among other things, "I don't think a Union can do anything for us, and it could work to our serious harm " While there is testimony in the record concerning his speech and Respondent introduced a copy of the speech into evidence, there is no complaint allegation concerning Russo's speech Accordingly, I do not pass upon the legality of the speech or of any statements therein as the speech is beyond the scope of the complaint herein 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 Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(I) and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the purposes of the Act Having found that the Respondent unlawfully drove Rena Camire to quit her employment involuntarily, I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to reinstate her to her former or substantially equivalent position of employment without prejudice to her seniority and other rights and privileges and to make her whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered as a result of Respondent's unlawful conduct Backpay shall be computed in a manner set forth in F W Woolworth Company. 90 NLRB 289, with interest added thereto in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co. 138 NLRB 716 Respondent's unfair labor practices indicate an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act generally Accordingly, a broad cease-and-desist order is necessary and appropriate to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I M R Products, Inc., Respondent herein, is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act 3 By engaging in certain described conduct referred to in section III, A and B, hereof, Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act, and thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. By engaging in conduct described in section III, C, hereof, Respondent discriminated against Rena Camire in regard to the terms and conditions of her employment, in order to discourage activities protected by Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act RECOMMENDED ORDER The Respondent, M R Products, Inc., its officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall I Cease and desist from- (a) Interrogating employees concerning their union membership, activities, and sympathies, and the union membership, activity, and sympathy of their fellow employees, threatening employees that Respondent's plant would close or that less work would be available for the employees if the Union were successful in its organizing campaign or that the employees would lose currently enjoyed benefits if the Union succeeded in organizing Respondent' s establishment M R PRODUCTS (b) Discouraging membership in the Union, or any other labor organization, by discriminating against employees in regard to the terms and conditions of their employment (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Offer to Rena Camire immediate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority and other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of earnings she may have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimination against her as set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due and all other rights under the terms of this Recommended Order. (c) Post at its premises in the city of Troy, Michigan, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' 2 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith " "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 the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith " 123 APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: After a trial in which both sides had the opportunity to present their evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the law and has ordered us to post this notice and keep our word about what we say in this notice WE WILL NOT question you in any way over the Union WE WILL NOT threaten you in any way over the Union. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with our employees' rights to self-organization WE WILL offer her job back to Rena Camire and give her backpay from the day we forced her to quit. You are free to become and remain members of International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, or any other labor organization, or to refrain from such activity, and we won't punish you in any way if you do M R PRODUCTS, INC (Employer) Dated 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, 500 Book Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan 48226, Telephone 313-226-3200