Essex International, Inc.

538 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR, RELATIONS BOARD Essex.International, Inc. and Allied'Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case 25-CA-3994-1 August 6, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND. JENKINS On May 21, 197-1, Trial Examiner Melvin Pollack 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 with supporting brief and the - General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Trial Examin- ' er s Decision. 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 ruling s ' are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's' Decision, the' exceptions and briefs, and the', entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the' findings, conclusions, and recommendation_ s of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Respondent, Essex International, Inc., Columbia City, Indiana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order. 1 The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Trial Examiner. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule a Trial Examiner's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d 363 (C.A. 3). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MELVIN PoLLAey, Trial Examiner: This case was heard 192 NLRB No. 75 on February 23, and 24, 1971, at Columbia City,, Indiana, pursuant to a charge filed on October 20, 1970, and- a- complaint issued on December 13,.1970, and amended at the hearing. The complaint alleges that - Respondent interfered with, restrained, and, coerced- its employees, in violation of Section 8(axl) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, -and that it discharged. two employees because of their union activities, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act., Upon the entire record,' briefs filed by the -General Counsel .and the Respondent, and ; my observation -of the witnesses as they testified, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - I. TIM BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent, a Michigan corporation, , maintains - its principal office at Foit Wayne, Indiana, and is engaged in the sale and distribution oVwire and related products.- This proceeding is concerned with events at Respondent's warehouse at Columbia City, Indiana, where Respondent also maintains " a wire and cable division: Respondent's annual interstate purchases and sales` at'its Columbia'City operations each exceed $50,060. ifind that-Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within ,the meaning of Section 2(2),(6), and (7) of the Act. II. `THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED- Allied Industrial Workers of America, AFL -CIO,'herein called the Union, is a labor , organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. In. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion Harold M. Frazier is Respondent's warehouse manager and works at its Fort Wayne office. Andrew Leffers is the general warehouse- foreman at the Columbia City ware- house. Early in July 1970,2 in the insulation and lead wire section of the warehouse,3 Frazier and Leffers.- motioned Phil Krider and Harold Peyton to join them.Frazier asked them if they knew anything about four men going to the Teamsters Union.4 Krider- said they "didn'tknow anything about this." Frazier said, "Well, four men went to the Teamsters Union" and asked them to keep their ears open and "if you find out who these boys are, or anything, let me know." Frazier walked away. Leffers, who held a Teamsters envelope in his hand, commented that "the union would have to come in for everybody to get decent wages," but he knew from his experience with the Company that "anybody inquiring about trying to get the union in would be 1 On April 8, 1971, I received into evidence as T. X. Exh. 1, a stipulation of fact entered into with respect to Respondent's Exh. 1 and 2. 2 All dates hereafter are in 1970 unless otherwise stated. 3 The warehouse is divided into three sections : the steveco section, magnet wire section, and the insulation and lead wire section. 4 On July 8 and 9, Business Agent Parker of Teamsters Local 414 stationed himself at the drive leading to the parking lot of the wire and cable plant, which is across the street from the warehouse, and passed out stamped, self-addressed envelopes containing two handbills and an authorization card. ESSEX INTERNATIONAL, INC. 539 terminated," and that "if any union started to get in [General Manager Simon would] close'up the doors, close down, and everybody would be out of a job." Frazier said he did not recall any conversation that he and Leffers had with Peyton or Krider concerning union activity and denied asking the employees whether they knew 'about four men going to the Teamsters. Peyton testified' that he did not recall such a conversation, Sand denied that Leffers at-that time or any other time said that Mr. Simon would-close the operation if the Union came in. Leffers did not testify concerning the incident. Phil Krider testified-, in `detail about the foregoing conversation and other relevant matters, and he impressed me as a reliable witness: I credit his'testimony About the July incident over that of Frazier and Peyton. Accordingly, I0. find -that Respondent violated Section-8(a)(1) of the Act by Frazier's interrogation of Krider and Peyton concerning employee-anion activity, by his instructions to them to report back anything they found out about such activity, and by Leffers'-' statements to the' effect, that Respondent would-discharge anyone who tried to bring in a union 'and would close down the operation at Columbia City if a union came in. George Brunning is the foreman of the steveco section. Timothy Condra testified that'sometime in July he and other "employees, in Brunning's presence, "were all talking about the wages, how we would like to get a union in." $running remarked that Respondent's Los Angeles ware- house "had gotten a union in over Fred Simon, and Fred Simon swore he would never let another union come in, that he would close the plant down." 5 Brunning denied making this remark. Ron Magsman, named by Condra-as one of_the`employees who heard Brunning's remark, denied ever hearing Brunning make such aremark. Condra further testified that sometime during the course of his employment with Respondent, Leffers overheard Condra and other employees talking about the Union in`the cafeterias Leffers said that "Fred Simon would close the doors to the warehouse if the union tried to come in." Leffers did'not testify concerning this incident. Condra was discharged by Respondent, on October, 30. He'told several employees a few days-before he testified at the hearing that he was inclined to see General Manager Simon and tell him "he'd` forget it" if he could have his job back.` Nevertheless, his testimony about`Leffers'"remark finds support in the credited testimony, of PhilKrider about a similar remark by Leffers.'I do not consider Brunning`a reliable witness (int fi;a). I credit Condra's testimony- and find that Respondent violated Section 8(a')(1) of the Actby the statements of" Brunning and- Leffers to the effect that Respondent would close the warehouse rather than deal with a union. Respondent fired Phil and Larry Krider on September 11. Condra testified that he, Ron Magsman, Gordon Stucky, -and another employee asked" Leffers why the Kriders had been fired, According to Condra, Leffers replied, "We told them thatwe let them go due to lack of 5 Respondent's warehouses, in Los Angeles and San Francisco are represented by the`Teamsters. s Condra named Gordon Stucky as one-of the employees in the group. Stucky was hired on June 1, 1970. 1 find that this incident occurred after work but you all know it was because of the union. I found out about this the night before and I lay awake all night- to try to find out how to let them go." Leffers did not testify concerning this incident.. Stucky testified that Leffers said "he couldn't sleep that night;'that he had to" let ,two people go" and that he decided to_let"the Kriders go rather than Stucky and Loren, Fry.., Tim Horstmeyer testified that Condra said to Leffers, "You laid them off, because of the union," but that Leffers, said "he had, to let two guys go and he, picked Phil and-Larry .. . because of business reasons:' Ron Magsman testified that Leffers said he had. to let the Kriders go "because of business -conditions" and "had , to make a choice between four guys." - I do not credit Condra's testimony that Leffers told ,the employees' that the Kriders had been fired because of their union activity. B. The Discharge of Phil and Larry Krider Respondent, which had maintained a warehousing operation at Fort Wayne, completed a' new-facility' at Columbia City and _ in March 1970 began to transfer the Fort Wayne operation to the Columbia City warehouse. The Fort Wayne warehouse was closed down on June 1 and the last racks were installed in the Columbia City warehouse toward the end of August. Phil Krider started to work in the insulation and ` lead wire section at the Columbia City warehouse on March * 16 at an hourly rate of $2,25. He received a 15-cent raise,atthe end of May and, effective July 20, was raised, another 25 cents, An hour and promoted to assistant foreman. Warehouse, Manager Frazier noted in a promotion. memorandum that Phil Krider`wasdoing "outstanding work." Krider testified that as assistant foreman he had the authority, to give -work assignments to the other employees in the section.?' Larry, Krider started to work in the steveco section of the warehouse in'May,. During the week of August 24, two representatives of the Union handbilled Respondent's wire and cable division. On their way to work `one morning, Phil and Larry Krider drove up to Regional Representative Keith ' Schnepp and asked him-"how they could get a union into the warehouse over there?" Schnepp told therethey-would have to get "a sufficient number" of signed authorization cards, -gave them authorization cards, and ' instructedthem to solicit only during nonworking time. As the Krider brothers turned into the driveway leading to the warehouse, they - noticed that Frazier, Leffers, and several other employees were looking out of the window of Leffers' office about 125 feet away. On September 9 in the cafeteria, several employees including the Kriders expressed their dissatisfaction with their pay. Phil Krider said he had union authorization cards and that anyone who wanted to fill one out, should come "after work down across the railroad-tracks-.-- Larry Krider told one of the employees to "pass the word'around" to the "guys down to his end." That night the Kriders and several June 1. r The parties stipulated that Phil Krider was not a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. 540 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD other employees met at the railroad tracks and signed union ,cards.8 The Kriders were discharged : on September 11 by General Warehouse Foreman Leffers. Phil Krider testified that Leffers told him and his brother Larry in the cafeteria that : he hated- to lay them off and that it probably was a permanent layoff and they should look for other, work. Larry asked why they were getting laid off. Leffers replied, "Well,-you can't get awaywith what you're doing ... the company knows about these things, they knew about this all along." Larry 'asked how- the' company found -out. Leffers said, "Well, we found out about this on our ownwe noticed these card's about two weeks before, and no one has to tell us." Larry remarked, "Someone had to tell you," and upon'Leffers^ denial said, "`I bet it was-Harry Peyton.'' Phil added that Peyton had been after his job. Leffers-insisted that neither Peyton nor anyone else "had to tell us about this." Phil said he had torn up the cards but Leffers said that made no difference and that "he couldn't get a good night's,sleep the night before." He explained: "I was told to :do this'-the day before by Harold Frazier, I got 20 years in with the Company and it's either your job or mine. If_I don't do it I won't be'here the next day."'Leffers said they Were` good workers and they could use him as a reference, but that they should'call him at the office and not try "to call anybody else, that it wouldn't do any good to contact anybody else." The, men, walked into the office and Phil wrote down a telephone number. After receiving their paychecks, "they told Leffers [at he could mail their next checks. hairy asked.Leffers if he knew "anybody that was hir'in'g Leffers'suggested "Carnation ... out' of Fort Wayne He told them not to stay around any longer than [they] had to.." They said all right, got their tools, went to `tire- cafeteria, and "talked to the guys about what had happened." Phil told Loren Fry we got terminated, we got fired" Larry Krider's testimony about the discharge interview with Leffers was substantially the same as his brother's. He said he talked to Gordon Stucky, Tim Condra, and a few other employees in th'e steveco section before leaving the plant. He told them he had been fired. They asked him if it was'because of the Union. He said `'yeah", and Stucky asked him if the Company knew who had signed union 'cards.^He'replied,_ No, 'ttiey don't know who signed the cards, not unless somebody told that signed a card: I don't think you guys_will get in 'trouble. "9 L'effers testified ' that' he told the Kriders when he laid them off, "From the looks of things it will be quite a while, it will be a good idea to look for'another job because things don't look like they will pick up enough?' About a week after the discharges, Harold Peyton and Steve Scott visted Phil Krider. According to Krider, Peyton s Union Representative Schnepp testified that he received 9, signed cards-from the Kriders. , 9 Tim Horstmeyer testified that Larry K ider told them he had been laid offfor businesss reasons: I credit Larry Kxider. 10-Lauer,is the assistant-foremah (leader) of the magnet wire section. 11 Frazier stated that Bierie is a "sales trainee ." Respondents records show that Bierie was hired as a warehouseman. 12 The parties stipulated that the value of goods received at the ..warehouse does, not include goods produced by the DWI Division which were received at the warehouse. The parties also stipulated that the shipments reflect the weight of goods on which Respondent paid freight told him he was not "the one that told onus, that got us fired ... that it was.Dave-Lauer.710 Petyon testified to the same effect. The warehouse employees all do- essentially the same work. Four, employees on -September 11-Bob, Trian, Gordon Stucky,: John Jennings, and Loren Fry had less seniority, than the Kriders. Respondent at this time also employed a-summer employee, Duncan White, It hired a part=time employee,- Mark Bowling, on November 10,,and a full-time-warehouseman, Eugene Bierie, won December 21, 1970.11 Leffers testified that he would not rehire the Kriders because they -did not perform their- work "satisfactory to suit me." Respondent contends that a decline in business required a layoff at the, warehouse, and that Leffers selected the Krider brothers for layoff because their workreeords Were poor- Walter-Miller, division controller of Respondent's DWI Division, testified that the, division as a whole suffered a serious decline in business during the second half of 1970 compared to the -first half of 1970.- He supplied. the following, information on 1970, receipts and shipments` of the Columbia City warehouse:12 Receipts -in- 'Shipments dol l Ars in pounds Jan. 1408862 • .1608778 Feb. 1753600, ..•1567191 - Mar. 1616292, - 803828, Apr. 2771184 '1237933 May- _ 1896234, 1076446 Jun. 1373207 1186250 Jul. 1348345 - 1248979=- Aug. - 898613 "t2°32358 Sept. 1009564 "as8338690„ Oct.. - 965439 997697 Nov. 734561 854915 Dec. 954894 - 930517 Warehouse Manager "Frazier testified that Vice President Simon, asked him on September 7 if he could get by with two }fewer men at the warehouse and,, based on the monthly inventory figures at the warehouse and his own observation of tthe-warehouse, he replied, "I' think so'"13 He allegedly told Leffers on ,September 8 that he had to terminate two -employees. Lefferrs explained his selection of Phil Krider for layoff as follow. Phil was a "real good"employee until he vas promoted to leadman in July. Leffers expects his headmen to spend 80 percent of their `time doing their own work. charges but do not include goods shipped by United Parcel Service or the United States Postal Service. 13 According to Frazier, the inventory at the-warehouse at this time was considerably over' the, "target" of a 60-day, supply and so showed a decrease in sales. Respondent's comparative inventory status report shows the following for the Fort Wayne and Columbia City warehouse operations in 1970: TARGET: 2575000; Dec. '69: 1813000;,, Jan : '1922000; ,Feb.- 2206000; Mar.: 250;5000 ; Apr.: 3310000; May; 3498000; June,. 3408000; July:- 3663000; Aug.: 3676000; Sep.: 3692000; Oct.: 3903000; Nov.: 3796000; Dec.: 4479000. - ESSEX INTERNATIONAL, INC. 541 Phil, however, "began to shove his work off on other employees" and "his language became very vulgar." About the last of July, Leffers heard him direct "a stream of vulgar language" at Steve Scott. He told Phil afterwards that Scott did not have the capability of other men in the warehouse and he should "be a little more patient with him." " Foreman Quinn told Leffers that Harold Peyton and Loren Fry had complained to him about Phil's excessive amount of vulgar language. Quinn himself complained that Phil "wanted to push [his work]- off on the other` two workers in the section"; that he did not "want to pick his orders"; and that he would sit down "while the others would be running lead wire." Quinn reported to Leffers that he did not reprimand Phil but "talked to him about it, explained to him what he expected him to do and how he expected him to do it." Leffers late in July had to tell Phil in the lunch room "to keep his language down .., . in respect-for our office girl." One day Loren Fry said to Leffers and Quinn, "Phil is not in, I'll have a decent day today." Leffers told Phil in August that "he should be working and setting a good example for the other people." In talking to Quinn about the need to lay off "a man back here," Leffers said that-Phil would have to be reduced "to warehouseman from a lead man" if Fry or Peyton were laid off. Quinn said he preferred Fry, Peyton, and also John Jenkins over Phil. For this reason, because reducing Phil to warehouseman "might possibly cause trouble," and because Leffers had already selected Larry Krider to be laid off, Leffers decided to lay Phil off. Foreman Quinn testified that Phil Krider "didn't do as much work as he should have" after he became a leadman on July 20, that he spoke to Phil about his work "maybe twice," that he also, spoke to Leffers sometimes in August about Krider's work, and that when Leffers said he had to cut, down on his help,,he recommended that Phil be let go. Harold Peyton, who succeeded Phil as leadman, testified that Phil "didn't do as much work" after his promotion. Truckdriver Mike Licata testified that he heard Phil use "very vulgar language" to Steve Scott and that he had two conversations with Phil "around June" in which he told Phil "it wasn't necessary to abuse the boy like that." Phil Krider testified that Quinn never reprimanded him for not doing his job properly, but that Quinn told him a few times, "mostly in August," that he was doing a, good job. He said Leffers told him-at one time "to be patient and not so hard on Scott" He said - Leffers had never reprimanded or talked to him about using obscene or abusive' language, but that Leffers came into the cafeteria "a couple of times and told everybody to hold their language down, that there was a lady present."" Left'ers explained the layoff of Larry Krider as follows: Leffers had noticed that Larry was "a little reckless with a lift truck" and inclined to sit around in Foreman Brunning's absence. He told Brunning to talk to Larry "a little bit and try to get him going," Late in July, Brunning told Leffers he had verbally warned Larry for smoking in a no smoking area. Before going on vacation about September 1"' Bruning told Leffers that Larry needed 14 L fers did not refer to this conversation in a pretrial affidavit. 15 In a pretrial affidavit, Bruning said he told Leffers before going on vacation that he "wasn't happy" with Larry's work. He did not mention constant supervision, that "you have to watch him to keep him working." Leffers agreed. He then talked to Brunning about "the amount of business down there" and "ifwe were faced with a layoff while he was gone who he considered his most valuable men in that section." Brunning named Ron Magsman, Tim Horstmeyer, and Gordon Stucky as the men he would like to keep.14 As Brunning considered Larry his "least desirable" man, Leffers. selected him for layoff when he was told the following week to lay off two men. Foreman Brunning testified that he caught Larry smoking after Repondent had put up "No Smoking" signs and told him "that he knew the rules, that he could be suspended or have time off for it." He said he also caught Larry "skidding" the forklift truck. 'He said that before going on vacation he told Leffers that he was "real unhappy" with Larry, that. Leffers should "keep an eye on him." He said the question of a layoff came up and he told Leffers he -preferred to keep Gordon Stucky rather than Larry.'5 - Larry Krider testified that Brunning told him around inventory time in August that he should not smoke: "We smoked that night. I lit a cigarette up and he told me I better watch it, if somebody else caught me I would get fired, or something." He said he had also been -told- not to put stickers on the fork lift, but that he had never been reprimanded or disciplined by anybody. Warehouse Manager Frazier allegedly agreed with General Manager Simon on September 7 that a layoff should be effected at the Columbia City warehouse because the warehouse inventory was - substantially over "target" and so indicated that sales were declining. Respondent's 1970 comparative inventory status report shows, however, that the warehouse inventory substantially exceeded "target" as early in April 1970. Respondent's summaries of warehouse receipts and shipments are admittedly` incom- plete. While these summaries indicate a substantial reduction in the value of goods received, the weight of shipments in August exceeded shipments in March, May, and June and were only slightly less than shipments in April and July. Respondent discontinued a night shift the latter part of August and the remaining warehouse employees worked a substantial amount of overtime the last week of August. Respondent, according to Frazier, "tried to hold" one or two summer employees who were not returning to college until after the first or second week in September. One of these summer employees, Duncan White, was still employed when the Kriders were discharged on September 11. - Phil Krider was an "outstanding" employee when he was promoted to leadman on July 20.16 Respondent contends that he thereafter used vulgar and abusive language to the employees in his section and that he did not do a fair share of the work. Leffers heard Phil use vulgar language to Steve Scott, a janitor who occasionally helped: out in Phil's section, and told Phil to be patient with Scott because he was not as capable as the other employees. It does not appear that Leffers had any other occasion to talk to Phil about using abusive language to the employees in his any discussion of a possible layoff. 16 Krider, a 4-month employee, was selected for promotion over Harold Peyton who had worked for Respondent since October 1968. 542 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD section. Leffers and Foreman Quinn - testified that they spoke to Phil about the proper performance of his duties, but,neither man cited a specific incident which led to their telling Phil that-he was not doinga fair share of the work.17 Phil credibly testified that he never received a reprimand and that Quinn, told- him several times .that, he was doing a good job. Foreman Brunning cautioned Larry Krider not to smoke in violation of a no-smoking rule, and Larry, along with other employees,18 occasionally raced _a- fork lift. Larry denied that he had ever been reprimanded for failing to do his work. Although Leffers and Brunning testified to a conversation before Brunning went , on vacation in September in which Brunning allegedly recommended that Larry be, let go in the event ' of a layoff, their pretrial affidavits do not refer to such a conversation. Phil and Larry Krider gave detailed and consistent testimony concerning their conversation with Leffers when he told them they were being laid off. Leffers did not testify in rebuttal. I credit the testimony of the Kriders to the effect that Leffers said Respondent, found out about their union activities and that- Frazier told, him to discharge them. ,.Under all the circumstances, I do not credit Respondent's explanation for the discharge of Phil and Larry Krider and find that Respondent discharged them for,their union activities, in violation of Section 8(a)(3). and (1),of the Act. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is an_ employer engaged in com- merce withiin the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and'(7) of the Act. f'2." The Union is a , labor organization within, the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3." By the acts and conduct herein found violative of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, 'which unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend that it.-cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action .designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. L have found that Respondent discriminatorily dis- charged Phil - and Larry,Kridef . I . shall therefore recom- mend that Respondent offer them immediate- and full reinstatement to their. former or substantially equivalent positions - and make them whole4 for any loss of pay, they may have , suffered by reason of the discrimination practiced against them, by payment to them of a sum equal to that which they would normally have-earned from the 17 Leffers ,said, ,inter alga, that he selected Phil for layoff because there would be no need -for a leadman if 'an employee was let go. Harold Peyton, however, succeeded Phil as leadman. is Brunnmg conceded on cross-examination that skid marks were "all over -the floor [and I could have been made by other people also.' 19 In the event no exceptions are filed ' as provided by Section 102.46 of date of, the discrimination-to- the date of.reinstatement, less net earnings during said period, if ,any. The backpay provided herein shall be computed- in -accordance with the Board's formula setforth-in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289,.with interest thereon at the rate; of 6 percent per annum computed in a, manner prescribed in Isis. Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the. entire record , I recommend, pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, issuance of the following:19 ORDER Respondent, Essex International Inc.; its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Coercively, interrogating employees concerning their union 'sympathies and activities, asking employees to observe and report union activities, threatening employees with discharge, for engaging in union activities, and threatening to close down if a union should succeed in organizing the warehouse. (b) Discouraging membership in the Union, or in any other labor organization, by discharging employees or otherwise, discriminating inrespectto their hire or tenure of employment. • , ' -- r (c) In any other manner-interfering with, restraining, or coercing `employees in the exercise,of their, rights to self- organization, to form labor :organizations, to join or assist the Union, or any other labor organization, to- bargain collectively through-representative of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection or to refrain from any and all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative-action which I find is necessary to effectuate thepolicies of the Act: (a) Offer to Phil and Larry Krider immediate and full reinstatement to their.former jobs or, if those jobs•no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions without preju- dice to their other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered as aresult of the discrimination practiced against them, in the manner set forth in the Section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Notify the above-named employees„ if -presently serving in the Armed Forces, of the United States, of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the, Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available; to, the Board or-its agents, for^examiningand copying, all payroll records, social - security payment records, timecards,- personnel, records and reports, and, all, other records necessary to ascertain any backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order., the ,Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions,' and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, automatically become the findings, conclusions; decision and order of the Board, and,all` objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes ESSEX INTERNATIONAL, INC. (d) Post at its warehouse in Columbia City, Indiana, copies of,the attached notice marked "Appendix." 20 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 25, shall, after being duly signed by representative of Respondent, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ- ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that said notices-are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the -Regional Director for Region 25, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this decision, what, steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.21 - IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that, except as hereinabove found, all other allegations in the complaint be dismissed. 20 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 NationalLabor 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." 21 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 25, 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 WE WILL NOT discourage our employees from joining or assisting the Allied Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by 543 discharging them or otherwise discriminating against them. WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees about their union sympathies or activities, we will not ask employees to observe and report union activities,lwe will not threaten employees with discharge for engaging in union activities, and we will not threaten to close down if a union should succeed in organizing the warehouse. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with the rights of our employees to join or support a labor union. WE WILL offer to Phil and Larry Krider immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered when we discharged them for joining and assisting the Union. All our employees are free to become or to refrain from becoming members of the above-named Union or any other labor organization. Dated By ESSEX INTERNATIONAL, INC. (Employer) (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days, from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any othermaterial. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, may be directed to the Board's Office, 614 ISTA Center, 150 West Market - Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204, Telephone 317-633-8921.