Master Tank and Welding Co.

274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Master Tank and Welding Company and Lodge No. 822, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. Case 14-CA-5787 May 6, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND KENNEDY ployees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. All parties were represented at the hearing and were afforded full oppor- tunity to present relevant evidence and to argue orally on the record. Briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respond- ent have been duly considered. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observa- tion of the demeanor of the witnesses on the stand, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT On February 11, 1971, Trial Examiner Benjamin B. Lipton issued his Decision in the above-entitled pro- ceeding, 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 at- tached Trial Examiner's Decision. He also found that Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices and recommended that the allegation pertaining thereto be dismissed. Thereafter, the Re- spondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Deci- sion with supporting. brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional 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 Ex- aminer made at the hearing and finds that no prejudi- cial error was committed.' The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Ex- aminer's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re- lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Re- spondent, Master Tank and Welding Company, Quincy, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Ex- aminer's recommended Order. ' We find no merit in Respondent's contention that the Trial Examiner was biased and prejudiced and that the hearing was not fairly conducted. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE BENJAMIN B. LIPTON, Trial Examiner: On December 7 and 8, 1970,' a hearing in this case was held before me in Quincy, Illinois, based on a complaint by the General Coun- sel' of the Board alleging certain independent violations of Section 8(a)(1) and the discriminatory discharge of two em- All dates are in 1970, except as otherwise noted. The charge by the Union was filed and served on September 2, and the original complaint thereon was issued on October 23. 1. JURISDICTION AND LABOR ORGANIZATION Respondent, a Texas corporation, maintains a plant in Quincy, Illinois, solely involved in this proceeding, at which it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of pressure vessels and related products. In the fiscal year end- ing September 30, Respondent had a direct inflow and a direct outflow valued in each instance in excess of $50,000. It is admitted, and I find, that Respondent is engaged in commerce, and that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Issues The complaint alleges that Respondent engaged in certain conduct relating to the union activities of employees, consist- ing of coercive interrogations, a promise of benefit, a threat of reprisal, surveillance, creating the impression of surveil- lance, and the discharges of Thomas McWane and Howard Peterson. Respondent generally denies the alleged violations. B. Background and Setting Solely involved herein is the tank plant,' consisting of ap- proximately 50 employees under Gary Straus, plant manager, Carl Barnard, general foreman, Roger Sublette, line foreman of the old production line, and Roger Blentlinger, line fore- man of the new production line. Sublette was the immediate supervisor of Peterson and McWane, the alleged dis- criminatees. During the week ending August 22, some of the employees at the plant discussed among themselves the question of un- ion representation. A meeting was arranged for Monday, August 24, at 6:30 p.m., to take place after work4 in an open area at Lock and Dam Park, located about 2 miles from the plant. At this meeting, with some 20 or 21 employees present, consideration was given to the type of union appropriate for organizing the employees, and how to make the initial con- tact with a union. Peterson volunteered to communicate with a union man in Hannibal, 19 miles from Quincy. McWane advised the employees as to the purpose of the meeting, and told them that if they were going to get a union, they had better go through with it, as this was the last chance they had. Finally, another meeting was set, at the same time and place, for Thursday, August 27. At the second meeting, attended by 21 to 24 employees, the discussion was similar to that of the first meeting. McWane and Peterson "did a lot of the talking" and were apparently the principal spokesmen at both meet- ings,' each of which lasted at least 45 minutes. On August 28 McWane and Peterson were discharged, under circumstances more fully described infra. At Quincy, Illinois, there is also a head plant or division. The workday ended at 5:30 p.m. Logan Murphy, who organized the first meeting, did not show up. 190 NLRB No. 50 MASTER TANK AND WELDING COMPANY 275 C. Restraint and Coercion Concerning their conversations with Plant Manager Straus, General Counsel's witnesses gave the following tes- timony, in substance: On August 25, in the morning, Straus asked Danny K. Hall if he had gone to the meeting. Hall's reply was that he had no knowledge of the meeting. On August 26, in the morning, Straus spoke to McWane at his machine. He referred their discussion 6 months earlier con- cerning a wage raise, and indicated that McWane had a raise of 20 cents coming to him. He then asked whether McWane was going to attend the meeting, and McWane replied he knew nothing about it. Straus remarked that "there would be no future for him [Straus] around there if there was [a union] because he was planning to buy a new home." On August 27, about 4:30 p.m., Peterson approached Straus for information concerning the purchase of a house in Quincy. After a brief discussion, Straus asked him: "Howard, what went on at the meeting?" Peterson responded, "What meeting?" Nothing further was said. In examining Straus, no attempt was made by Respondent to meet the specific testimony of Hall, Peterson, and McWane on the alleged interrogations. General denials by Straus were elicited and received which were framed in the legal language of the complaint. He testified that "mostly through other employees" who volunteered the information to him, it was probably on August 24 or 25 that he became aware of the first meeting of the employees at Lock and Dam Park, and not until after August 27 did he learn of the second meeting. Straus gave the account that, in July, McWane had asked him for a wage raise and he then told McWane he would have to be considered together with certain other employees. Con- tinuing, he related that in their subsequent conversation, about August 26, McWane raised the question of his July request for a raise, indicating that he had an offer to work for a former employer; this time he told McWane he "would consider it some more," but "other boys on the line" would have to be considered too. Hall, Peterson, and McWane are credited. Harvey F. Clay testified that, on unspecified dates between the two meetings of the employees, he was questioned sepa- rately by General Foreman Barnard and Line Foreman Sub- lette. In both instances, he was asked if he had attended the meeting, and he gave negative replies. Specifically to Barnard, Clay said, "no, I didn't know nothing about a meeting." On occasion in the past Barnard had asked Clay if he was going to attend a meeting of Jehovah's Witnesses, both being mem- bers of this religious organization. Whether Barnard's ques- tion concerning a meeting referred to Jehovah's Witnesses, Clay answered that "it could have been and then it couldn't." Barnard did not testify regarding this conversation. In view of the manner in which both the question and answer were worded and the timing of this incident, I reject Respondent's contention that Barnard was questioning Clay about a meet- ing of Jehovah's Witnesses. As to Sublette, a general denial was entered similar to those elicited from Straus. Clay is credited in both instances. On August 28, on his way home in Hannibal, Peterson stopped to see Sublette, who lived nearby and had been off from work that day. Peterson described the conversation: I said, "Roger, you won't be seeing me tomorrow, I just got fired today." He said, "Oh, no, I didn't know, Gary [Straus] thought you had nothing to do with the union." He said, "My God, Howard," Then I told him that I had turned it over to the Labor Board, and he said, "My God, Howard, the old man won't stand for that, he will close the door, I'd better look for me another job." ... "Well, we knew about the meetings, we had three men that come back and told us about it." Sublette gave the version that Peterson said he was fired because Respondent thought he was engaged in union activi- ties, and that he told Peterson he knew nothing about the discharge. He denied telling Peterson (as the questions were put to him by council) that he, Sublette, would close the plant before he would let the Union in, and that "other employees" told him what occurred at the union meeting. I credit Peter- son. On August 27, when he was leaving the plant about 6 p.m. to attend the scheduled union meeting at Lock and Dam Park, Peterson observed Plant Manager Straus and Joseph Thomas, a night foreman, standing on the platform of an overhead crane. The crane is generally used to stack tanks and load trucks, and its platform, which is stationary, is about 20 feet above the ground. From Respondent's plant to the entrance of the park, the measured distance is 1.9 miles along sharply winding roads. About 1/8 mile from Respondent's plant, there is access to the Lock and Dam Road leading directly to and from the park. The park itself cannot be seen from the platform of the crane, and only a small portion of the Lock and Dam Road can be seen under favorable condi- tions. No attempt was made to show the extent of general automobile traffic during the pertinent period in August, nor the degree of public use of the park itself. It is not unusual that, for various purposes, supervisory personnel mount the crane outside the Respondent's plant. General Counsel contends that Straus was engaged in sur- veillance of the employees who were driving from the plant to the park to attend the union meeting, and that in particular Straus could identify the well-known blue and white pickup truck driven by Peterson. Straus explained that he was up on the crane to deliver a telephone message to Thomas and to give him instructions on work to be performed that night. He denied that he ever "spied on any employee going to a union meeting." Concluding Findings on Section 8(a)(1) Admittedly, Plant Manager Straus was informed by "volunteer" employees of the two meetings at Lock and Dam Park shortly after these events. In Line Foreman Sublette's conversation with Peterson, it was reaffirmed that Respond- ent received information from employees concerning the two such meetings which were held. It may reasonably be in- ferred, and is found, that Respondent was thus made aware of the substance of both meetings and particularly that the employees were involved in union organizational activities. Within the 3-day interval between the union meetings, Re- spondent engaged in five individual instances of interrogation of employees as to whether they had personally attended a meeting or what had occurred at a meeting. No legitimate purpose was shown for these questions in which the plant manager, Straus, personally participated. In each instance the questioned employee, though actually knowledgeable, chose to respond negatively. The general testimony adduced by Respondent that supervisors were instructed not to question employees regarding union activities cannot weigh against the evidence that such conduct was in fact committed, nor does it serve to neutralize any coercive impact upon the em- ployees. Considered in conjunction with other unfair labor practices herein by Respondent, it is amply established that the interrogations which have been described violate Section 8(a)(1), as alleged.' ' Blue Flash Express, Inc., 109 NLRB 591; Mitchell Plastics, Inc., 159 NLRB 1574; cf., Bourne Co. v. N.L.R.B., 332 F.2d 47 (C.A. 2). 276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In the same context that he was interrogated on August 26 as to whether he would attend the second union meeting, McWane was promised by Straus that he was to be given a wage raise of 20 cents an hour. The subject of the raise was broached by Strauss and related back to their earlier discus- sion. On August 28, Respondent discharged McWane assert- edly for refusing to follow instructions on this occasion, and generally on unspecified grounds that he was an unsatisfac- tory employee. A basic inconsistency is apparent in Respond- ent's posture on the wage raise and the discharge. The evi- dence, in my opinion, justifies the inference that Straus was aware or suspected McWane's leading role in the organiza- tional meetings. Whether McWane was genuinely being con- templated for a meritorious raise, the timing of Straus' prom- ise on August 26 is a compelling element. I find that the raise was promised to dissuade McWane from his participation in the union activity, and that it was therefore violative of Sec- tion 8(a)(1). On August 28 the statement was made by Line Foreman Sublette to Peterson that, "the old man won't stand for that, he will close the door." It is found that this constitutes a threat of plant closure to discourage or avoid union represen- tation of employees. In addition, Sublette's further remark that, "We knew about the meetings, we had three men that come back and told us about it," unlawfully tended to create the impression that the employees' meetings were being sub- jected to Respondent's surveillance. In both allegations, the violations of Section 8(a)(1) are sustained. With respect to the alleged surveillance by Plant Manager Straus from the platform of the crane on August 27, the additional factors are noted, as argued by General Counsel: At the time of this incident, Straus had been informed by employees and was aware that the first meeting had been held, had in the interim interrogated Peterson, McWane, and Hall, and most probably knew of the scheduled meeting about to take place. Further, there is a question as to the plausibility of the plant manager taking a telephone message to an underling, Thomas, up on a crane 20 feet high. And Thomas, the night foreman, was not asked to testify on the subject.' Considering all of the foregoing, I am unable to conclude that the General Counsel has made out even a prima facie case of surveillance. Of course, the subjective apprehensions of Peterson cannot be controlling that his car could or might have been identified en route to the meeting in the park. In all of the described circumstances, in my opinion, it is beyond the realm of reasonable probability and is reduced to remote speculation (a) that Straus would by these means seek to learn the identity of employees, or of Peterson, going to the union meeting, and (b) that Straus' conduct could reasonably be regarded by employees as attempted or actual surveillance. Accordingly, this allegation is dismissed. D. The Discharges On August 28, at 11:40 a.m., Plant Manager Straus notified Peterson at his work station that he was discharged because he was "not doing his job." The next day, Peterson received a letter from Respondent stating the reason for termination as "inadequate work." On August 28, at 11:45 a.m., Straus came to McWane, a welder, and gave him an instruction to fix a hole in the tank on which he was working. McWane said he would. He was putting 6 "bungs" or fittings in each tank, each bung taking 1 minute to install. About 5 minutes later,' Straus returned ' One Joseph Thomas did testify for Respondent on another matter. Straus testified it was about 10 minutes later; McWane stated it was and said, "I thought I told you to fix that hole." McWane answered, I will as soon as I get these bungs in." Straus then told him, "punch your card." The following day, a letter from Respondent advised McWane he had been discharged for "not following instructions." Peterson first worked for Respondent for more than a year, commencing May 1961, and then resigned to take a better paying job. In 1963 he resumed employment with Respond- ent and continued for about 1 year, when he again left for another job. In February 1969, he was again rehired and worked until the time of his discharge in question. In April 1969 and April 1970, he received raises on each occasion of 15 cents, attaining the final wage rate of $2.40 an hour. In the 3-month period preceding his discharge, Peterson was given 70 hours of work per week, which was 20 hours of overtime more than most other employees. There was no incident or event, alleged or shown, which precipitated Peterson's termination on August 28. Through its counsel, in the form of questions on cross examination of Peterson and subjects raised with its own witnesses, Respond- ent asserted in effect many varied causes for Peterson's dis- charge, e.g., staying too long in the coffee room away from his work station; rolling tanks flat, failing to check for round- ness, and causing too many leaks; not grinding plates prop- erly; protesting against working with two new black em- ployees, referring to them in vile terms, and thereby causing them to quit; complaints of certain helpers assigned to Peter- son that he spoke too much on the job, and requesting trans- fers for such reason; and turning off the switch which momen- tarily prevented an employee from operating a sandblaster.' Testimony by Respondent's supervisors indicates that the same practice of Peterson going to the coffee room and being ordered to return to his work area was not a recent develop- ment but existed virtually throughout Peterson's employ- ment. Other employees were similarly told to return to their stations, and there is no showing that any of them were disciplined. According to Respondent, employees are permit- ted to go to the coffee room but should bring their coffee back to be consumed at their place of work. Peterson testified that he goes to the coffee room at the times when he is caught up with his work, and that from there he could view his work station. Employee witnesses called by Respondent related that they take their coffee breaks at times which are depend- ent on how much the production line is caught up. Likewise, concerning Peterson's alleged work defects, the job inspector called by Respondent testified that Peterson's work was the same in the 2 months preceding his discharge as it was the entire previous year. Another Respondent witness stated that, during his employment of 2 1/2 years, there were always tanks coming down "flat" along the production line. Several of the occasions or incidents relied on by Respondent oc- curred many months or even more than a year prior to Peter- son's discharge. As noted, the only reason given to Peterson was "inadequate work." This same "problem," Plant Manager Straus testified, he has had with Peterson the whole time Peterson worked for Respondent. The matter of Peter- son "talking a lot" was apparently a known and unchanged condition during all of his employment. The asserted grounds after he had put in four bungs. ' Straus, who alone made the decision to discharge Peterson, cited his absences in the coffee room and failure to grind the plates . It is questionable whether Straus was aware of all the purported grounds for the discharge. Substantial conflicts exist among Respondent's witnesses. Leading questions were persistently put by Respondent's counsel, though cautioned and ad- vised that it could affect the weight to be given the answer. In addition, for example, characterizations were indulged in by counsel concerning "warn- ings" given to Peterson, which were not based on previous or reasonably anticipated testimony. MASTER TANK AND WELDING COMPANY 277 relating to the two new black employees are based upon extremely vague testimony and are otherwise unsupported. Mc Wane was discharged by Plant Manager Straus on Au- gust 28 , as a result of a specific incident , for failing to follow instructions. Employee Clay, a welder , stated that normally when he burns a hole in a tank he or the foreman will repair the hole. He had burned a good size hole in a tank that morning on August 28, but Straus told him to "kick it out" where it reached McWane on the production line. At this point, Straus instructed McWane to fix the hole. Without contradiction, McWane testified that he could not work on the hole immediately : the tank was red hot ; he could not have reached the hole from where he was standing ; he was having trouble with the conveyor chain at this location ; he would have had to roll the tank up to him, fix the hole, and then back the tank up again to put on the fittings; it would have taken just a few minutes to put the fittings on first. Since 1963, McWane had been continuously employed with Respondent, except for a short period in 1968 when he had resigned to accept another job and a few months later returned to work for Respondent . As earlier discussed, on August 26, only two days before his discharge, McWane was specifically advised of a wage raise by Straus . Straus testified that he fired McWane for several reasons, one of which was inability to follow instructions , but no other reasons were shown in the evidence . " This was the only occasion that McWane did not follow Straus' orders. The other pFoblems involving McWane were based on reports, otherwise un- specified, which he received from the supervisory staff. How- ever, testimony from Supervisors Barnard, Sublette, and Blentlinger were highly generalized and fail to substantiate Straus. Their testimony was vague and to the effect that McWane never refused to follow orders, but that he griped, was hesitant, or did not do it immediately when told. McWane was never criticized for griping , nor was he ever warned or reprimanded concerning his work . Sublette conceded that the same "problem" existed with McWane for "quite some time ... oh, a couple of years." Specific instances cited of McWane's hesitance to fulfill an instruction were limited, stale, and otherwise unpersuasive of any real fault. It is perhaps more than a matter of curiosity that the immediate supervisors of McWane were not involved in the incident on August 28, and indeed that Straus, as plant manager, was so directly concerned with McWane's work that day. Generally, I am convinced that Respondent attempted to dredge up every possible basis for criticism of Peterson, whether valid or not, as post facto justification for his dis- charge. There is no explanation as to why Respondent previ- ously failed to take effective measures to correct these as- serted transgressions or to discipline Peterson . Indeed, Respondent rehired and gave raises to Peterson while being aware of his purported shortcomings. All these grounds now raised by Respondent are not , in my view, the true reasons for Peterson's termination. Similarly, it appears clear that McWane's discharge was based upon a pretext . As already described, Respondent had been informed by employees of the occurrence and substance of the two union meetings. On all the evidence, I find that it was aware of the active partici- pation on the part of Peterson and McWane, or that it be- lieved these two employees were the leaders or instigators of the union movement . Respondent's union animus is demon- strated by its unlawful acts of restraint and coercion, found supra, and also by Line Foreman Sublette's admission to Peterson. Finally, it is pointedly significant that both dis- charges were effected the next day after the evening of the second union meeting-a factor which Respondent failed to explain or overcome with believable evidence. Accordingly, it is concluded that Peterson and McWane were discharged, in whole or substantial part, because of their actual or sus- pected union activity, in violation of Section 8(a)(3)." Ill. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent , set forth in section II, above, occurring in connection with its operations described in sec- tion 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. IV. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. A broad order appears warranted particularly by reason of the discriminatory dis- charges which go "to the very heart of the Act."12 It has been found that Respondent discriminatorily dis- charged Howard Peterson and Thomas McWane. It will therefore be recommended that Respondent offer these em- ployees immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs, or, if those jobs no longer exist , to substantially equivalent jobs, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the discrimination against them, by payment to them of a sum of money equal to that which they normally would have earned , absent the discrimination, less net earnings during such period , with backpay computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established in F. W. Wool- worth Company, 90 NLRB 289. Backpay shall carry interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum, as set forth in Isis Plumb- ing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. It will be further recom- mended that Respondent preserve and make available to the Board, upon request , all payroll records, social security pay- ment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary and useful to determine the amounts of backpay due and the rights of reinstatement un- der the terms of these recommendations. Upon the foregoing findings of fact , and upon the entire record in the case , I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discharging Howard Peterson and Thomas McWane on August 28, 1970, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 4. By the foregoing, and by other acts and conduct interfer- ing with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 10 Respondent's counsel also indicated that additional reasons for McWane's discharge would be developed , but such evidence was not pro- duced. " See, e .g., Lynch-Davidson Motors, Inc., 183 NLRB No. 79. " N.L.R.B. v. Express Publishing Co., 312 U.S. 426; N.L.R.B. v. Entwis- tle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532 (C.A. 4). 278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in writing, practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section within 20 days from the date of this Decision , what steps 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Respondent has taken to comply herewith.15 Upon the above findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER" Respondent, Master Tank and Welding Company, Quincy, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their attendance at union meetings or their union activities; threat- ening employees with plant closure, loss of jobs, or other reprisal to discourage union membership or support; coer- cively promising or granting benefits to employees; or creat- ing among employees the impression that their union activi- ties are under surveillance. (b) Discouraging membership in Lodge No. 822, Interna- tional Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization, by discharging employees, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectu- ate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Howard Peterson and Thomas McWane immedi- ate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of earnings, in the manner set forth in "The Remedy" section of the Trial Examiner's Deci- sion. (b) Notify the above-named employees, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of their right to reinstatement upon application, in accordance with the Selec- tive Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (c) Preserve and make available to the Board or its agents all payroll and other records, as set forth in "The Remedy" section of the Trial Examiner's Decision. (d) Post at its Quincy, Illinois, plant, copies of the notice attached hereto as "Appendix."" Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 14, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent, be posted immedi- ately upon receipt thereof, in conspicuous places, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. " In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 14 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." " In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after exceptions have been filed, notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government 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 we intend to carry out the order of the Board, and abide by the following: WE WILL NOT ask you anything about a Union, or who is in the Union, in a manner which would coerce you regarding your rights under the Act. WE WILL NOT threaten you with closing down the plant or loss of employment, or punish you in any way in order to stop you from joining or helping a Union. WE WILL NOT promise or grant you wage increases or other benefits to keep you from joining or supporting a Union. WE WILL NOT make you believe we are spying on employees in order to find out who has joined the Union, or who is in favor of the Union. WE WILL NOT discharge,, layoff, or otherwise dis- criminate against you in order to discourage member- ship or support for Lodge No . 822, International As- sociation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guar- anteed employees in the National Labor Relations Act, which are as follows: To engage in self-organization To form, join or help unions To bargain collectively through a representative of their own choosing To act together for collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection To refuse to do any or all of these things. Since it has been found that we unlawfully discharged Howard Peterson and Thomas McWane , WE WILL offer to give them back their regular jobs, or if those jobs no longer exist, we will give them substantially equivalent jobs; and WE WILL pay them for the earnings they lost because of the discrimination, plus 6 percent interest. WE WILL notify the above-named employees, if pres- ently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of their right to reinstatement upon application, in ac- cordance with the Selective Service Act and the Univer- sal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. MASTER TANK AND WELDING COMPANY (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by any- one. MASTER TANK AND WELDING COMPANY 279 This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 1040 from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced, or Boatmen's Bank Building, 314 North Broadway, St. Louis, covered by any other material. Missouri 63102, Telephone 314-662-4167. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with