Garner Tool & Die Manufacturing Inc.

640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Garner Tool & Die Manufacturing Inc. and Local Lodge 31, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. Case 17-CA-4907 August 2, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On April 12, 1972, Trial Examiner Owsley Vose issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its 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 brief and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt his recommended Order. 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, Garner Tool & Die Manufac- turing Inc., Lincoln, Nebraska, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE OwsLEY VosE, Trial Examiner: This case, tried before me at Lincoln, Nebraska, on February 10, 1972, pursuant to charges filed on November 11 and 15 and December 23, 1971, and a complaint issued on December 23, 1971, presents the question whether the Respondent discharged Paul Hill because of his suspected union activities. Upon the entire record, my observation of the witnesses, and after consideration of the beefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS I. THE RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS The Respondent, a Nebraska corporation, is engaged at Lincoln, Nebraska, in the manufacture of tools, dies, jigs, fixtures, molds, and other items, and it also provides 1 Allen wrenches are hexagonal-shaped pieces, usually one-fourth inch or less in diameter, bent in the shape of an L, which are used for loosening product planning and engineering services. In the course of its business the Respondent annually purchases materials valued at more than $50,000 from sources outside of Nebraska. Upon the foregoing facts, I find, as the Respondent admits, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Local Lodge 31, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Discharge of Paul Hill in Violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act 1. Background Hill was hired by the Respondent in July, 1966, and worked steadily for the Respondent until November 1, 1971, when he was suspended for 1 week. On Friday, November 5, during the week's suspension, Hill was discharged by Edward Garner, the Respondent's president. There is no question raised in this case about Hill's competency as a toolroom employee. Early in 1970, at the request of President Garner, the employees in the Respondent's toolroom elected a three- man shop committee. Hill was elected chairman or spokesman for the committee. At first the committee met about once a month. But as time passed the meetings were held less frequently. At a meeting of the employees on October 13, 1971, President Garner announced that henceforth the Company would not order any tools for the employees costing less than $10, explaining that the ordering of numerous small items was too time-consuming for the two office employ- ees. Previously the Respondent had ordered whatever tools the employees wanted and allowed them to be paid for later through payroll deductions, without any interest charge. At the meeting Hill objected to this policy change and questioned Garner as to what could be done about tools which were constantly wearing out, such as Allen wrenches. Garner's response was that he would buy a set of Allen wrenches for anyone who could not afford to buy them. As Hill's subsequent conduct disclosed, Garner's response did not satisfy Hill, who was of the opinion that the Company itself should furnish small tools which regularly wore out, such as Allen wrenches.' 2. The events of October 27 to 30 At the time of the events involved in this case, most of the Respondent's toolroom employees were working a 10- hour day, starting at 6 a.m. and ending at 4:30 p.m. On October 27 Garner announced that effective immediately the workday was being reduced to a 9-hour day. While Garner did not at this time specify the time the workday was to commence, he did indicate his preference for a later and tightening set screws. A set of Allen wrenches costs substantially less than $1 at retail 198 NLRB No. 91 GARNER TOOL 641 starting hour, stating that it did not look well to customers for them to see the shop empty. At the afternoon coffee break on October 27 the employees discussed their preferences concerning the starting hour. The employees present during this discussion voted in favor of continuing to start work at 6 a.m. On the two following mornings, October 28 and 29, apparently most of the toolroom employees reported for work at 6 a.m. and left work at 3:30 p.m. Hill was one of those who reported for work at 7 a.m., however. At about 3:45 p.m. on Friday, October 29, Phil Mullin, who is one of the Respondent's two office employees (Garner's wife is the other office employee), approached Hill as he was working on a lathe. Mullin is Garner's son- in-law. According to Hill's credited and undenied2 testimony, the following conversation then ensued: Phil come up to me and started talking to me and he came up to me and stated that Ed Garner was so mad that he couldn't hardly see straight and I says, "Why?" and he says, "Everybody left an hour early. Most everybody left an hour early." Well, I says, "They come in at 6 o'clock. They had worked the nine hours like he requested and they left." And he said that Ed didn't want them coming in at 6 in the morning and he proceeded on to say that we didn't realize how good we had it and they were always bickering, you know, for minor things. -such as the previous two weeks I had complained about the company policy on buying tools. After Mullin reminded him about his earlier complaint about the Company not furnishing Allen wrenches, Hill replied as follows, as he testified: I said, "When you take a man that will invest $3,000 in tools3 to make another man money," and I said, "Then some son-of-a-bitch wouldn't buy them an Allen wrench," I said, "well, this is pretty chicken-shit." At about 4 p.m. that day Garner went up to Hill as he was working on the lathe and asked him what time he had come to work that day. Hill said 7 o'clock. Garner then asked Hill what time he was coming to work on Monday. Hill inquired what time Garner wanted him to come in. When Garner replied 7 o'clock, Hill said "O.K." Garner then asked Hill what time the other employees were coming in to work on Monday. Hill stated that he did not know, that it probably depended on the hour that the group leader told the men to report. Garner spoke to Hill again that day as Hill was putting away his tools at 4:35 p.m. As Hill testified, Mr. Garner come out of the office and come over to the bench to my tool box, and put his arm on my back and patted me on the back and said that everything was o.k., that it is good to blow off steam, it was healthy to blow off steam, and everything was all right. From the rapid sequence of events, Hill's conversation with Mullin about 3:45 p.m. in which he alluded to Garner as "some son-of-a-bitch," Mullin's return to the office, and Garner's approaching him at 4:35 p.m. and telling him that it was good to blow off steam and that everything was all right, I infer that in the meantime Mullin had reported the "son-of-a-bitch" remark to Garner, and that Garner was referring 'to this remark in stating that it was good to blow off steam. Although Garner had reason to take offense at Hill's remark, Garner's conduct described in the above- quoted testimony indicates that he did not take offense at it and in fact condoned Hill's conduct in this regard. The employees do not usually work on Saturday or Sunday. On Saturday, October 30, Garner went to the shop and posted a notice beside the timeclock which read as follows: MONDAY MORNING Our work day starts at 7:00 A.M. No one will clock in before 6:50 THIS IS AN ORDER Too] room will start a 40-hour week until further notice. ED GARNER 3. The suspensions of November 1 On Monday morning, November 1, Garner arrived at the shop at 6:50 a.m. and noticed that the employees had obviously been working for some time. Garner went to each man individually and asked him if he had read the notice by the timeclock. As each man answered in the affirmative, Garner notified him that he was being suspended for the remainder of the day. Hill arrived at the shop at 6:55 a.m., just as the other men were leaving. Upon inquiring of one of the men, Hill was informed that they had been sent home for the rest of the day. Upon entering the shop, Hill was summoned by Garner to the office. There the following occurred, as Hill testified: I asked him what was the matter or what happened. And he said if there was one person that should stand up for [him] it should be me, and he says, pointing his finger at me, "I am laying you off for one week. I don't want to see your face around here until next Monday." And at this time I didn't understand why and I said, "Why?" And he said, "You referred to me as a son-of-a-bitch." And at that time I said, "Ed, you told me yourself that you were a son-of-a-bitch to work for."4 2 The Respondent did not call any witnesses or offer any evidence in its behalf Consequently, all of the findings herein made are based on unrefuted evidence 3 Hill later testified that he had about $3000 worth of tools at the shop. 4 The Respondent contends that Hill's testimony above-quoted about his I-week suspension is "in direct contradiction with" the testimony of another of the General Counsel's witnesses, John Morack, concerning what Garner told Hill at the time of the action taken against him on November 1. However, Morack was not present during the November I conversation between Garner and Hill and was merely reporting what Garner told him on November 10 as to the conversation between Garner and Hill on November I As found below, as soon as the toolroom employees became aware of Hill's discharge on November 8, some of them walked out of the shop in protest. Garner subsequently had the men called to the shop in an (Continued) 642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4. The men join the Union; the Union requests recognition on November 2 After his suspension Hill joined five of the other toolroom employees who were going to have a cup of coffee. After discussions at the coffee shop, and later at the unemployment office, the suggestion was made that perhaps the men should contact a union representative for information about organizing. This suggestion led to a meeting that night, Monday, November 1, at the Labor Temple with Dean Kocina, a representative of the Union, which was attended by all of the toolroom employees. All of the employees, including Hill, signed union cards that night. The next morning, November 2, Union Representative Kocina communicated with Garner and Garner agreed to meet with him on Friday, November 5, at 1:15 p.m. Later, that same morning Kocina sent a confirmatory telegram to the Respondent in which, after reciting the understanding as to a meeting on November 5, he stated that a majority of the employees had chosen representation by the Union, offered to prove such majority status, and requested that the Respondent enter into a recognition agreement. In a letter dated November 4, 1971, to Union Represent- ative Kocina, Garner, after stating that he did not believe Kocina's "multiple claims and allegations," informed Kocina that he had engaged Midwest Employers Council to represent the Respondent, that all further communica- tions regarding the Union's request for recognition should be addressed to Mr. David Flebbe of the Council, and that the meeting scheduled for November 5 at 1:15 p.m. was cancelled. Garner's letter concluded with the following: We are advised that any violations or irregular action on the part of the union against our employees will be severely dealt with by the government. In contrast with the attitude shown by Garner's action in promptly agreeing to Kocina's November 2 oral request for a meeting, the tone of Garner's letter to Kocina of November 4 as a whole is quite unfriendly. 5. Hill's discharge on November 5; the work stoppage in protest against Hill's discharge; subsequent events On Friday, November 5, Garner called Hill at his home, and being informed that Hill was not at home, left a message for him to return the call. (A day or two after Hill's suspension he had obtained another job.) Hill left his interim employment early to return Garner's call. Hill testified that the following conversation then took place: Mr. Garner, over the phone he says, "Paul," he says, "We are going to let you go." And I says, "For what reason?" and he says, "anybody that thinks of me in that manner," he says "We don't have any place for them in the shop." So I said, "Well, am I laid off or fired, or what?" He said, "Yes," he just left it hanging. He said, "Yes," you could tell by his voice that he was upset or something. He said that I could pick up my tools that night if I wanted to and I told him that I was leaving for a trip out of town and I would not be able to pick them up until early the following Monday morning. About 8:30 a.m. on November 8, Hill returned to the shop to pick up his tools. As soon as he had done so a number of the toolroom employees walked off the job. Commencing on Wednesday, Mrs. Garner called the absent employees to come to the shop to talk to Garner. After conversations with the men during which he told some of the men to come back to work the next day or not at all, the men started returning to work, some on Wednesday, a few more on Thursday, and others on Friday. By Monday, November 15, all of the toolroom employees had returned to work. In his conversations with the men Garner sought to justify his treatment of Hill. Garner explained to John Morack that he had hired Hill, despite the opinion of his former employer who had discharged Hill that Hill was "a troublemaker" and "an agitator" because he had a "lot of faith toward mankind" and thought that he could handle Hill. To Timothy Hester, Garner characterized Hill as "outspoken" and a "rabble rouser." Garner stated to Donald Knop that Hill "was always complaining about little things." Garner asked Knop if he had heard what Hill had called Garner. When Knop said yes, Garner asked Knop what he would do if Hill called him that. Knop's reply was, "Well, he has probably called me that before." In his conversations with Morack, Hester, and Roger Olson, Garner mentioned an incident of Hill's stealing from the Company. Garner stated to Olson that Hill had been fired "not only because of the problems of the week prior, but also because of him stealing from the company in the past." In his conversation with Hester, Garner mentioned the stealing incident but added that Hill had made restitution. Hill testified that 2 or 3 years earlier he had taken some materials and tools and made some projects that he had not paid for, and that after he learned that Garner was aware of his conduct in this regard, he went to the foreman and asked what he could do to make things right. (About this time another employee, Donald Hams, was discharged by Garner for stealing.) This led to a discussion with Garner in which Hill told him that he wanted to "make amends" for his conduct. Garner said that he could have the cost of the materials and tools deducted from his check. Two days later, as Hill testified, Garner told the toolroom employees at a shop meeting about the incident and said effort to find out if they were going to return to work In the course of his conversations with the men on these occasions Garner sought tojustify the discharge of Hill Morack testified that during Garner's conversation with him Garner stated, among other things, as follows It was on a Monday and he said that he dismissed Paul for a week and said that he told him that he could just keep right on going if he wanted to because he didn't know if he could work for him or not anymore, Assuming that Garner was telling the truth to Morack about his conversation with Hill on November 1, 1 do not perceive the "direct contradiction" which the Respondent sees in Morack 's testimony. But in any event, in view of Garner's failure to testify in this case I cannot accept this self-serving account, given to Morack by Garner 10 days after the event at time when Garner was seeking to justify the discharge of Hill, in GARNER TOOL that Hill had "made amends and he didn't want anybody to mention it, and it was completely forgotten."5 6. Conclusions concerning the discharge of Paul Hill The determination of the Respondent's motivation in first suspending and later discharging Hill presents a very difficult problem for the reason, as the Respondent correctly points out, that there is no direct evidence of the Respondent's knowledge of Hill's involvement in the concerted activities which preceded his discharge. Howev- er, Hill, the chairman of the Shop Committee, was regarded by Garner as a leader among the employees and as their spokesman. Hill had but recently been very outspoken in voicing his objections to Garner's new tool purchasing policy and his refusal to furnish Allen wrench- es. In the controversy over the starting hour during most of the employees concertedly refused to start work at the 7 a.m. starting time indicated by the employer, Garner sought to find out from Hill what the rest of the employees planned to do on November 1. In the "Employer's Response to Union's Unfair Labor Practice Charge" (G.C. Exh. 2) which was submitted to the Regional Office before the issuance of the complaint, the Respondent's represent- ative, Midwest Employers Council, Inc., attributed to Hill statements which show that Garner believed that Hill was involved in the concerted refusal to report for work at 7 a.m. and regarded him as the spokesman for those who were insisting on reporting for work at 6 a.m., even though Hill himself was not participating.6 In addition, in attempting to justify Hill's discharge in conversations with employees after Hill's discharge, Garner characterized Hill as a "troublemaker," an "agitator" and a "rabble-rouser." These are terms normally applied by employers to individuals who are attempting to instigate other employ- ees into engaging in concerted or union activities. Garner's explanation for Hill's suspension on November I is false. While Garner could have taken offense at Hill's "some son-of-a-bitch" remark which was made in connec- tion with Garner's refusal to supply Allen wrenches and other small expendable tools, Hill's undenied testimony establishes that Garner did not take offense at this language. Experience teaches that such language is not uncommon in establishments such as the Respondent's machine shop. Instead, as Garner told Hill shortly after the incident, Garner treated Hill's remark as a healthy blowing off of steam caused by Hill's irritation at Garner's refusal to supply certain small tools. I conclude that Garner upon discovering that most of the employees were persisting in their refusal to start work at 7 a.m. despite Lis order to the with him on November I Accordingly I find the facts concerning Garner's conversation with Hill on November I to be as stated in the text above S According to Hill's undenied testimony, Garner told him at the time he acknowledged his misconduct, that he "loved" Hill for "owning up" to his conduct, and that he "had forgiven" him 6 Thus, in the unsworn statement signed by David R. Flebbe of the Midwest Employers Council, Inc it is stated as follows- 3. At about 4 P.M. on October 29th, Mr Garner walked into the shop and noticed that almost everyone was gone He saw Mr. Paul Hill standing by a machine and asked him, "Where are the employees9" Hill replied, "They've gone home " Gamer said, "Why have they gone home? It isn't quitting time yet " Hill said-"They came in at 6.00 643 contrary-concerted action which he suspected Hill had had a part in instigating-seized upon Hill's unflattering comment about him as a pretext to cover up the real reason for suspending Hill, which was to retaliate against him for his suspected leadership in bringing about the refusal of most of the men to report for work at 7 a.m. Only in this manner can I account for the disparity in the discipline meted out to Hill who himself had not participated in the refusal to start work at 7 a.m. Thus Hill was suspended for I week whereas the other employees who had repeatedly refused to report for work at 7 a.m. were only suspended for 1 day. The organization of the shop quickly followed the suspension of the men. Garner was notified of the Union's request for recognition the next day after the men were suspended. While at first promptly acquiescing in the Union's request for a meeting, later in the week, after engaging the services of an employer consulting organiza- tion, Garner adopted a harder line towards the Union in a letter having a distinctly unfriendly tone. The next day, Friday, November 5, Garner changed Hill's temporary suspension into a permanent discharge and gave as his only explanation that he did not have a place in his shop for "anybody that thinks of me in that manner." I can interpret this only as an allusion to Hill's "some son-of-a-bitch" remark, which I have found that Garner had seen fit to overlook and condone. Later, in his conversations with the men who had walked out in protest against Hill's discharge, Garner sought to justify Hill's discharge partly on the grounds that he had been guilty of stealing from him. But this incident had occurred more than 2 years earlier, and Garner had forgiven Hill for his misconduct and said that the incident should not be mentioned again. The fact that Garner gave spurious explanations for Hill's discharge is of significance in appraising Garner's motivation in changing Hill's suspension into a discharge. As stated in Shattuck Denn Mining Corp. v. N.LR.B., 362 F.2d 466, 470 (C.A. 10): ... Nor is the trier of fact-here the trial; examiner -required to be any more nail than is a judge. [Footnote omitted.] If he finds that the stated motive for a discharge is false, he certainly can infer that there is another motive. More than that, he can infer that the motive is one that the employer desires to conceal-an unlawful motive-at least where, as in this case, the surrounding facts tend to reinforce that inference. As 'found above, Hill was the chairman of the shop committee and an outspoken advocate of the rights of the employees. Hill was regarded by Garner as a leader among the men and dealt with as such by him. I have further (A M) " Gamer-"Why 6 00-starting time is 7 .00 (A.M) " Hill replied They are also going to come in at 6 00 A M Monday and you won't have anything to say about it." Garner asked, "Are you coming in at 6 00 (A M )9" To which Hill replied YES Garner then told Hill, "You had better not come in at 6 00. 1 am not authorizing anyone to come in at 6:00 We are supposed to start at 7.00 (A M ) and everyone knows it The above-quoted statement is cited only for the light which it casts on the attitude of Garner towards Hill in connection with the concerted refusal to report for work at 7 a in in view of Garner's failure himself to testify, I credit this unworn statement only to the extent that it is consistent with 644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD found that the evidence justifies the inference that Garner, despite Hill's nonparticipation in the concerted refusal to report for work at 7 a.m., suspected that Hill's influence lay behind the concerted action of the men. In these circumstances it is logical to infer that when Gamer was almost immediately confronted with a demand from the Union for recognition as exclusive bargaining representa- tive of the men, Garner suspected that Hill, as a leader of the men, was also engaged in the union activities along with the other men. The record suggests no credible explanation for Garner's change of heart towards Hill between the time of Hill's suspension on November 1 and his discharge on November 5 other than the fact the men had chosen union representation. Upon all of the facts, including particularly the fact that Garner gave Hill false explanations both for his suspension on November 1 and his discharge on November 5, I conclude that Garner's motive in both suspending and discharging Hill was one which he desired to conceal-an unlawful motive-namely, a desire to nd himself of this outspoken advocate of the rights of the employees whom he suspected had led the employees not only in their concerted refusal to report for work at 7 a.m. but also with respect to their seeking union representation. Accordingly, Hill's suspension on November 1 and his discharge on November 5 were illegally motivated. However, in view of the fact that the complaint did not put in issue the legality of Hill's suspension on November 1, I make no findings in this regard and conclude only that Hill's discharge on November 5 violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By discharging Paul Hill on November 5, 1971, because of his suspected concerted and union activities the Respondent has discouraged membership in Local Lodge 31, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, by discrimination in regard to Hill's tenure of employment, and has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, my recommended Order will direct that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. I have found that the Respondent discharged Paul Hill in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. To remedy this unlawful conduct my recommended Order will provide that the Respondent offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his former job, or if this job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent job, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges. My recommended Order will further direct that the Respon- dent make him whole for his losses resulting from the Respondent's discrimination against him by payment to him of the sum of money he would have earned from the date of his discharge until the date on which the Respondent offers him reinstatement, less his net interim earnings. Backpay shall be computed on a quarterly basis and shall include interest at 6 percent per annum, as provided in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. 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? The Respondent, Garner Tool & Die Manufacturing, Inc., Lincoln, Nebraska, its officers, agents, successors and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in Local Lodge 31, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discharging or in any other manner discriminating against employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any terms or conditions of employment. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Paul Hill reinstatement to his former job or if this job no longer exists to a substantially equivalent job, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of his discharge in the manner set forth in the Section of this decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Notify Paul Hill, if presently serving in the Armed :Forces of the United States, of his right to full reinstate- ment upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (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, as well as all other records necessary to analyze and compute the amount of backpay due under the terms of this recommended Order. (d) Post at its Lincoln, Nebraska, shop copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."8 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 17, after being duly signed by the Respondent's Hill's sworn testimony set forth above and discredit it where it contradicts Hill's sworn testimony 7 In the event no exceptions are filed to this recommended Order 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 10(c) of the Act and 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 a 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 GARNER TOOL 645 representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immedi- ately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, includ- ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 17, in writing within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.9 Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " 9 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 17, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith " against any employee because of his concerted or union activities. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL reinstate Paul Hill, with backpay. WE WILL notify Paul Hill, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of his 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. 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 all parties had the opportunity to present their evidence, it has been decided that we violated the law and we have been ordered to post this notice. We intend to carry out the Order of the Board and abide by the following: WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate Dated By GARNER TOOL & DIE MANUFACTURING, 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 other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 610 Federal Building, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106, Telephone 816-374-5181.