Schultz, Snyder & Steele Lumber Co.

SCHULTZ, SNYDER & Schultz, Snyder & Steele Lumber Company and Wayne Edward Snyder. Case 7-CA-8970 July 26, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On April 7, 1972, Trial Examiner Marion C. Ladwig issued the attached Decision in this proceed- ing. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief in reply 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 authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the Trial Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings, findings,' and conclusions and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified below.2 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 , as modified herein, and hereby orders that the Respondent , Schultz, Snyder & Steele Lumber Company , Battle Creek, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order, as so modified: 1. Delete paragraph 1(e) of the recommended Order and substitute the following: "(e) In any other manner interfering with, restrain- ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form , join, or assist Local No. 259, Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre- sentatives of their own choosing , and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection or to refrain from engaging in any or all such activities." 2. Substitute the attached appendix for the Trial Examiner's appendix. I 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 the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. STEELE LUMBER CO. 431 2 As a discharge in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act strikes at the very heart of the Act, we shall modify the recommended Order to include a broad cease-and-desist provision, APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board, having found, after trial, that we violated Federal law by making threats and assaulting an employee for engaging in union activity and by discriminatorily discharging seven employees, has ordered us to post this notice. WE WILL offer full reinstatement, with backpay plus 6 percent interest, to all these employees: Eugene Beuthien Jack Brumit Kenneth Hunter Dean Johnson David Piasecki Randy Rountree Wayne Snyder WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discrimi- nate against any of you for supporting Local No. 259, Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, or any other union. WE WILL NOT discharge any of you for engaging in protected concerted activity. WE WILL NOT threaten to close the plant or to lay off or discharge any of you for organizing or supporting a union. WE WILL NOT assault any of you for engaging in union activity. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist Local No. 259, Laborers' International Union of NorthAmerica, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection or to refrain from engaging in any or all such activities. SCHULTZ, SNYDER & STEELE LUMBER COMPANY (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) We will notify immediately the above-named indi- viduals, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of the right to full reinstatement, upon application after discharge from the Armed 198 NLRB No. 72 432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Forces, in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act. 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 other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compli- ance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 500 Book Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan 48226 , Telephone 313-226-3200. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MARION C. LADWIG, Trial Examiner: This case was tried at Battle Creek, Michigan, on February 17 and 18, 1972. The charge was filed on September 17, 1971,i and the complaint was issued on October 29 (amended January 21, 1972). The case arose when some of the employees began organizing for the Union, Local No. 259, Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO. The primary issues are whether (a) company supervisors threatened employees with discharge or other reprisal unless they refrained from supporting the Union, (b) a supervisor assaulted a union organizer in the course of discharging him and six other employees when they declined to work extra overtime on the Saturday before Labor Day, and (c) the Company discharged and refused to reinstate the seven employees for engaging in protected concerted activity and/or because of their union activity, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act. Upon the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the Company's brief, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION The Company, a Michigan corporation with its principal offices in Lansing, Michigan, is engaged in prefabricating housing panels and roof trusses at its plant and warehouse in Battle Creek, Michigan. It annually receives goods and materials valued in excess of $500,000 directly from outside the State . The Company admits, and I find , that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. is a working foreman in the housing department , where the housing panels are prefabricated. He lays out, cuts, and assists in building the panels, and directs the work of two employees regularly assigned to the department. He has selected other employees from the truss department to work in the housing department when needed, and has transferred a regular employee from the housing depart- ment, sending him to the truss department when "he didn't do what I told him." Robert has decided whether employees must work extra overtime (beyond the sched- uled daily overtime). Robert is the son of the shop foreman , William Blood, who does the hiring and finng at the plant . Although the Company contends that Robert is merely a leadman in the housing department, the credited testimony shows that, as son of the shop foreman , he acts as part of management and possesses and exercises supervisory authority both inside and outside the housing department . Robert attends management meetings with his father and General Manag- er George Ward to discuss trouble incurred on the job and mistakes made. (The management meetings are called when the "work was behind schedule" or merely to discuss what "we got out that day.") William Blood has instructed employees to take orders from Robert and has placed Robert in charge of the night shift on various occasions. While serving in that capacity , Robert has given orders and directed the work of the truss crew, has warned the night leadman to setup man concerning production , and has told a member of the crew "to shut up and get back to work" or he was fired . Robert has effectively recommended to his father that a new employee be assigned as a truckdriver. Robert has also spoken as a person who was close to or a part of management when he told an employee on September 7 (when the seven discharged employees were denied reinstatement ) "that his father would like to hire us back but he wasn't able to because of the big wheels in Lansing of Schultz, Snyder and Steele." Although Robert claimed at the trial that he was only a "leader" in the housing department and denied that he ever considered himself to be a supervisor , he stated in his October 14 pretrial affidavit that he had been placed in charge of the housing department as manager. The designation "leader" apparently originated about a week before the trial when , as admitted by Robert, General Manager Ward told him that that was his classification. After weighing all the evidence, I find that Working Foreman Robert Blood possessed and exercised authority to reponsibly direct housing department employees as well as truss department employees on the night shift, to require employees to work overtime, to transfer employees, and to make effective recommendations concerning employee assignments . I therefore find that in 1971 he was a supervisor as defined in the Act. II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Threats 1. Supervisory status of Robert Blood Robert Blood, who is known to employees as "foreman," 2. Threats by Robert Blood About August 23, employee Wayne Snyder and some of the other employees began talking about union representa- tion. The Union was finally contacted on August 31, and a union meeting was scheduled to be held at Snyder's home I Au l dates are in 1971 unless otherwise stated SCHULTZ, SNYDER & STEELE LUMBER CO. on Thursday evening, September 2. The four employees who attended the meeting (Eugene Beuthien, Jack Brumit, David Piasecki, and Snyder) took authorization cards and began soliciting signatures at the plant the next day. They had no further contact with the Union until after their discharge the following afternoon, Saturday, September 4. Meanwhile, Foreman Robert Blood was active in opposing their efforts to organize a union and in encouraging them instead to talk with General Manager Ward. (His apparent motivation was revealed when he told Snyder "that they had tried to get a union in there when the company first started and instead they were offered a 60 or 65 cent an hour more if they didn't get a union in"-as credibly testified by Snyder.) Sometime during the week before Labor Day, as employee Dean Johnson credibly testified, Foreman Robert Blood talked to Johnson and another employee and "said if George Ward got ahold of a list of . . . the names on the cards or the cards that we would be fired . . . he had worked problems out with Mr. Ward by taking them to him personally, and he suggested that we as a group or singly talk to Mr. Ward about our problems and try to discuss it out with him." Later, in Shop Foreman William Blood's private office, Robert Blood told Johnson that "if we signed these cards to get a vote on the union they may have to be shown to Mr. Ward so that he would know if they were signed or not, whoever it may be in favor, and if he saw this he may fire us for that. He restated the fact that we should talk to Mr. Ward." Johnson further credibly testified, "One time [Robert Blood] said [Ward ] would and one time he said could fire you for signing these cards. He advised me as a friend not to sign a card. He said he would like to see a union . He said previously they tried it and they were offered a wage settlement and they forgot the union at the time." That same week, as employee Brumit credibly testified, Robert Blood raised the subject of the Union and "said he didn't think they would ever get any. They had tried to bring a union in there sometime previous . . . and it didn't go through. . . . He did say it was his belief that the Company would close the yard down here in Battle Creek before they would have a union here." (The Company's plant in Lansing is unionized.) Also that week, as employee Randy Rountree credibly testified, Robert Blood told Rountree and two other employees "that he thought that we would be sorry if . . . we tried to get a union in." Employee Templeton credibly testified that Robert Blood told him two or three times that "We would probably end up being fired over this if we tried to bring the Union in." On Thursday, September 2 (before the union meeting at Snyder's home), Robert Blood told employee Eugene Beuthien and three other employees, after listing reasons for and against a union, "that he would kinda like to see a union himself but such a thing would not be because if we were to get a union in we would have to show the company a list of names to prove we had-51 percent of the employees requested by the Union, and when George Ward got ahold of that list of names we would all be fired." In response to this testimony, Robert Blood denied on direct examination that he at any time threatened to 433 discharge any employee , but testified on cross-examination that he was "not sure" if he told employees "that if Mr. Ward got a list of those signing union cards those men would be fired." Whereas the employees impressed me as being honest witnesses , Robert impressed me as being less than candid. I find that Foreman Robert Blood made the various threats (of discharge, plant closure, and being "sorry") and that the threats were clearly coercive and violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Moreover, Robert Blood's references to a cardcheck (something which management would be expected to discuss during an organizing drive) and his encouragement of employees to talk with General Manag- er Ward instead of seeking a union (to give management the opportunity of reaching a "settlement " with the employees as he said it had done before) suggest that his antiunion campaign was sponsored by higher supervision- -despite denials by Ward and William Blood of any knowledge of the union activity. 3. Threat by William Blood It is undisputed, as credibly testified by employee Johnson, that Shop Foreman William Blood talked to Johnson on September 2 about "these activities." (Johnson testified that he did not know if he mentioned to Blood "the union per se," but he mentioned "union activity" or "these activities.") Johnson talked to Blood "in the extreme southwest corner of the plant" and told him that "it was the truss crew in general," although there were some others. Johnson said that they were complaining about overtime and the working conditions . Blood said, "Well I have now decided instead of working the same group of men day after day to rotate the overtime so as not to tire out one group of persons." Johnson said the employees knew about this "and it didn't seem to be enough and they were talking about the Labor Board ." Blood said that Johnson was a top truckdriver and "you will be working through the winter fulltime . Most of the rest will be laid off this winter and if they don't mind their activities they will be laid off before this. He advised me not to associate with the group that was complaining." (Emphasis supplied.) This conversation took place during the time when Blood's son (Foreman Robert Blood) was actively cam- paigning against the Union , and on the same day that Robert Blood admittedly knew truss employees were inviting employees to the meeting at Snyder's home that evening. Although William Blood claimed that he did not know about any union activity until about 5 p.m. Saturday (2 days later), and although Johnson could not positively remember going further than identifying the happenings as "these activities" (when telling Blood that the truss employees "were talking about the Labor Board"), -I consider it most unlikely that Blood would be discussing "these activities" and threatening reprisal , while his son was engaging in an active antiunion campaign and talking as if , he were speaking for management, without Blood being aware of the union activity . (Also, as indicated below, Blood later made statements suggesting that he was aware of the organizing efforts.) I therefore find that when Shop Foreman Blood told Johnson that certain employees would be laid off before 434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD winter "if they don't mind their activities," he was threatening to lay off employees if they did not refrain from supporting the Union. I find that this threat was coercive and violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. B. Discharges and Alleged Assault 1. Joint refusal Snyder's shirt. Snyder shouted, "Keep your hands off me," and the employees separated them. Blood then stated, "You are through," and with a gesture with his hand toward the others, "You are all through." Thereupon seven of the employees punched their timecards and left. They were the four employees who attended the Thursday evening union meeting (Beuthien, Brumit, Piasecki, and Snyder) and three others (Hunter, Johnson, and Rountree). The Company hired a number of new employees in the spring and summer, and advised them that there would be much overtime. It scheduled 24 hours of regular overtime weekly: establishing an 11-hour workday on Mondays through Thursday, 10-1/2 hours on Fridays, and 9-1/2 hours (ending at 4 p.m.) on Saturdays-totaling 64 hours a week. Also, from time to time on weekdays, the Company scheduled "extra" overtime, which the employees had never refused to work. The Company had not required employees to work beyond 4 o'clock on Saturdays. However on September 4, the Saturday before Labor Day, about 3:30 or 3:45 p.m., Shop Foreman Blood advised eight employees working on trusses that they would have to continue working beyond 4 o'clock, until an order of large trusses was completed. They had begun on the order only a short time before, and one of the employees estimated that it would have taken until about 9 o'clock to complete the order. The workday had begun at 6 o'clock that morning. Two of the employees had worked until 11:30 the night before, and four of them had worked an extra 4-1/2 hours of overtime the preceding Wednesday night (working a total of 15-1/2 hours that day). Another one had worked 14-1/2 hours that Wednesday. A truckdn- ver, who was a member of the truss crew that Saturday, would have had to continue working on the order and then spend over 4 hours delivering the heavy trusses-thereby extending his workday, which began at 6 a.m. Saturday, until after 1 a .m. Sunday. The employees decided that because they were too tired and because some of them had out-of-town plans for the long weekend, they would not work beyond 4 o'clock. They went to the office about 3:50, and truckdriver Johnson went inside and told Blood that the employees were too tired and had other plans. Blood came out and demanded, "Who doesn't want to work over?" There was a pause, and then one of the employees said, "Bill, we all want to work but not this evening." Blood told them, that if they did not want to work to punch out and not bother to come back to work Tuesday-explaining that the order had to be delivered that night. (Blood testified that he told them, "If you can't stay and help us .. . without a doubt we won't need you Tuesday. We will have to make other arrangements.") Employee Snyder said something to the effect that he believed there was a legal limitation as to the amount of overtime that they could be required to work, and that if there was not, this was unreasonable (as credibly testified by employee Beuthien, who impressed me as having a better than average memory). At this point, Blood turned to Snyder and said, "I have heard about you; you are a professional troublemaker and you are through. You are officially through now." (Emphasis supplied. Blood testified, "I believe I said troublemaker. ... I don't know why I said it.") Then Blood reached out and grasped 2. Denial of reinstatement Over the weekend, the Company decided not to reinstate any of the seven employees. On Tuesday morning, September 7, General Manager Ward advised employee Johnson that the Company had decided to send work out to another plant , and since the employees were not dependable help, they were not needed. (Ward also told Johnson that the Company had lost several orders because the work was not completed, but there was no substantiation of this claim . The single unfinished order had been completed over the weekend and was delivered that Tuesday. I note that two or three persons worked on the order for an hour on Sunday and, as revealed by the timecards, six persons each worked between 8 and 9 hours on Monday (Labor Day)-most of them working from about 6 a.m. until about 3 p.m. This documentary evidence belies Ward's testimony that there were five persons working about 4 hours that Monday-an apparent fabrication to support his claim that he thought the order could have been completed within 2 hours, by 6 p.m., on Saturday.) That Tuesday afternoon, after giving the employees their final paychecks, Shop Foreman William Blood told them, "I am sorry, if you would have come to me about the Union you probably wouldn't have got fired." Also, as mentioned heretofore, Housing Foreman Robert Blood told one of the discharged employees (Hunter) that afternoon that Robert's "father would like to hire us back but he wasn't able to because of the big wheels in Lansing of Schultz, Snyder and Steele." (On Sunday morning, September 5, as employee Johnson credibly testified, William Blood had contacted Johnson and told him, "Nobody is fired. . . . I lost my temper and you can all come back." Although Blood denied on the stand that he had offered the employees their jobs back, General Manager Ward testified to the contrary , admitting that Blood informed him on Sunday that Blood "had told Mr. Johnson that employees could return to work on Tuesday morning." I discredit Blood's demal.) Following the Company's refusal to reinstate the discharged employees, it hired some new employees and utilized a manpower service for some of its labor. In its answer, the Company asserted that these employ- ees would have been "let go" between October 1 and November 10. However, it is undisputed that employee Johnson (hired in April) was promised work through the winter (the slack period), and that employee Hunter (hired in late January or early February) was told that he would probably be working through the winter . Employee Snyder (hired in July) was not told he was summer help, but was told he "might be laid off for a month or two months in the middle of winter." Employee Beuthien (hired in June) was SCHULTZ, SNYDER & STEELE LUMBER CO. told by both William and Robert Blood that he would probably be laid off in December or January 1972 for an unspecified period and hired back in the late winter or spring. The evidence does not disclose how much of the work was transferred to another plant after the Saturday incident, and to what extent, if any, this diminished the amount of work in the plant during the slack season. The evidence does show that one new employee, Glen Gay, was thereafter employed as a permanent employee; that another new employee, Dale Pepps, was working sometime after December 1; and that a manpower employee, Aker, "might" (according to William Blood) have worked full time until after December 1. Robert Blood testified that there were 8 employees on the payroll at the time of trial, February 17, including 2 new employees hired within the week-as compared to 17 during the paypenod ending September 7. 3. Knowledge of union activity Shop Foreman William Blood, who discharged the seven truss employees about 3:55 p.m. on September 4, denied that he had any knowledge of any union activity until afterward. He claimed that his first knowledge came that afternoon about 5 o'clock, when his son, Foreman Robert Blood, told him that the employees who had walked out had been trying to get the Union in. For a number of reasons, I do not believe him. It is most unlikely that Robert Blood would be engaged in an active antiunion campaign, with knowledge of the union meeting held at employee Snyder's home on Thursday evening, September 2, without mentioning anything about the Union to his father. Some of the statements Robert was making to employees suggested that his actions were sponsored by higher supervision, as discussed above. On the very day of the union meeting, William Blood himself was told that the truss crew was particularly involved in "these activities" and were "talking about the Labor Board." At that point, Blood indicated his strong opposition, implying knowledge of the union activity by stating "if they don't mind their activities they will be laid off" before winter. Then 2 days later, when union organizer Snyder spoke up about excessive overtime at the time of the discharges, Blood grabbed at him, grasping his shirt and stating, "I have heard about you; you are a professional troublemaker." Finding no plausible explanation for this statement, Blood asserted on the stand, "I don't know why I said it." I infer that Blood had heard about Snyder's organizing efforts and the union meeting at his home, causing Blood to act in rage. (I note that earlier Robert Blood had told employee Hunter, when talking about a union being tried before, that Snyder "just wouldn't be working that long.") William Blood also indicated a connection between the employees' union activity and the discharges by telling employees the following Tuesday that "if you would have come to me about the Union you probably wouldn't have got fired." Moreover, he did not impress me as being a trustworthy witness. I therefore discredit Shop Foreman William Blood's claim that he had no knowledge of the union activity until an hour after the September 4 discharges. 4. Concluding findings 435 Particularly in view of Foreman Robert Blood's vigorous antiunion campaign and Shop Foreman William Blood's threat on Thursday to lay off the truss crew, his attack on union organizer Snyder at the time of the discharges, and his indication on the following Tuesday that there was a connection between the discharges and the union activity, I find that the employees' union support was a motivating cause of the discharges. I therefore find that William Blood's discharge of the seven employees on September 4 was discriminatorily motivated and violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. However, even assuming that William Blood was completely unaware of any union activity at the time he discharged them, I find that the Company discriminatorily refused to reinstate them on the following Tuesday, September 7, and thereafter, when higher management (with knowledge at least by then of their union activity) announced that the employees were not needed, thereby reversing William Blood's Sunday rescis- sion of the Saturday discharges. This refusal violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. The General Counsel also contends that the employees were engaged in protected activity when they refused in concert to work extra overtime that Saturday. I agree. As held in Polytech, Incorporated, 195 NLRB No. 126 (1972), there is "a presumption that a single concerted refusal to work overtime is a protected strike activity" and this presumption "should be deemed rebutted when and only when the evidence demonstrates that the stoppage is part of a plan or pattern of intermittent action which is inconsistent with a genuine strike or genuine performance by employees of the work normally expected of them by the employer." Here, as there, the presumption has not been effectively rebutted. The employees refused only once to work extra overtime (beyond the 24 hours of regular overtime scheduled weekly) and explained, "we all want to work but not this evening" (the Saturday night before Labor- Day) because they were too tired and they had other plans. Nothing was said about refusing to work the regularly scheduled overtime, or extra overtime in the future. I therefore find that the Company, by discharging and refusing to reinstate the seven employees at least in part for engaging in protected concerted activity, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I also find that, by physically attacking union organizer Snyder, while accusing him of being a troublemaker (referring to his union activity), the Company further engaged in coercive conduct in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By threatening employees with discharge and other reprisals unless they refrained from supporting the Union, the Company engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. By physically attacking employee Wayne Snyder while accusing him of being a troublemaker (for organizing 436 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Union), the Company further violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 3. By discharging employee Snyder and six other employees on September 4 and by refusing to reinstate them on September 7 and thereafter, because of their union support and because they engaged in protected concerted activity, the Company violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. THE REMEDY In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, I find it necessary that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found and from like or related invasions of the employees' Section 7 rights, and to take certain affirmative action. The Respondent having discriminatorily discharged and refused to reinstate seven employees, I find it necessary that it be ordered to offer them full reinstatement, with backpay computed on a quarterly basis, plus interest at 6 percent per annum, as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962), from date of discharge to date reinstatement is offered. If a dispute should apse over whether or when any of the discharged employees, even in the absence of the discrimination, would have been temporarily laid off during part of the slack winter season, the dispute can be resolved at the compliance stage. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:' ORDER 2 Respondent, Schultz, Snyder & Steele Lumber Compa- ny, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns , shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any employee for supporting Local No. 259, Laborers' Interna- tional Union of North America , AFL-CIO, or any other union. (b) Discharging any employee for engaging in protected concerted activity. 2 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, 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 (c) Threatening any employee with discharge or other reprisal unless he refrains from supporting a union. (d) Physically assaulting any employee for engaging in union activity. (e) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Eugene Beuthien, Jack Brumit, Kenneth Hunter, Dean Johnson, David Piasecki, Randy Rountree, and Wayne Snyder immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for their lost earnings in the manner set forth in the section of the Trial Examiner's Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Notify immediately the above-named individuals, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of the right to full reinstatement, upon application after discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act. (c) 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 records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (d) Post at its plant in Battle Creek, Michigan, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix.' 13 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu- ous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 3 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the 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 and Order of the National Labor Relations Board "