G & S Metal Products Co., Inc.

G & S METAL PRODUCTS COMPANY 705 G & S Metal Products Company, Inc. and Internation- al Union, Allied Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case 8-CA-6712 October 12, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO Labor Relations Act, as amended, by conduct hereinafter detailed. At the conclusion of the hearing all parties waived oral argument, but briefs have been received from the Gen- eral Counsel and the Respondent and have been duly con- sidered. Upon the entire record made in this proceeding, and from my observation of the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS On April 18, 1972, Administrative Law Judge' Eugene George Goslee issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex- ceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order .2 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that G & S Metal Products Company, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said rec- ommended Order. 1 The title of "real Examiner" was changed to "Administrative Law Judge" effective August 19, 1972 2 In view of an 8(a)(4) finding and order reinstating Small with backpay, we find it unnecessary to decide whether Small 's termination also violated Sec. 8(a)(3) of the Act. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE EUGENE GEORGE GOSLEE, Trial Examiner: This case came on for hearing before me at Cleveland, Ohio, on Feb- ruary 2, 1972, on a complaint issued by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board and an answer filed by G & S Metal Products Company, Inc., hereinafter called the Respondent.' In substance, the issues raised by the pleadings in this case relate to whether or not the Respon- dent violated Section 8(a)(3), (4), and (1) of the National 1 The complaint, which was issued on December 16, 1971, is predicated upon a charge filed on November 10, 1971, and served on the Respondent on November 11, 1971. I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent is an Ohio corporation, maintains its principal office and place of business at Cleveland, Ohio, and is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of metal housewares. In the course and conduct of its business operations the Respondent annually ships its products val- ued in excess of $50,000 to points located outside the State of Ohio. The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that the Respondent is an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED During the course of the hearing all parties stipulated and I find that International Union, Allied Industrial Work- ers of America, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The complaint alleges that the Respondent violated Section 8(l)(3), (4), and (1) of the Act by discharging its employee, Virginia Small, because she gave testimony under the Act and because she joined, assisted, and favored the Union. In response to the complaint the Respondent filed an answer in which it generally denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. The discharge of Virginia Small occurred in the context of a hearing concerning a prior unfair labor practice pro- ceeding involving the Respondent. In the light of this cir- cumstance the General Counsel requested at the outset of the hearing in this case that the Trial Examiner take official notice of that prior proceeding,2 in which a Decision was issued by Trial Examiner John F. Funke on February 1, 1972, as well as official notice of a prior Decision and Order of the Board which issued on April 24, 1970.3 It is the General Counsel's contention that the Decision issued in the proceeding before Trial Examiner Funke, hereinafter sometimes referred to as Case 8-CA-6349, and the Board's Decision as reported at 182 NLRB 111, constitute disposi- tive and persuasive evidence of the Respondent's animus and hostility to the rights of its employees protected by Section 7 of the Act. In furtherance of this contention the General Counsel offered, and I received in evidence over the objection of the Respondent, the Trial Examiner' s Deci- 2 G & S Metal Products Company, Inc, Cases 8-CA-6349, 8-CA-6440-2, 8-CA-6504, 8-CA-6538, 8-CA-6572, 8-CA-6577, 8-CA-6593, and 8- RC-8239. 3 G & S Metal Products Company, Inc., 182 NLRB I11. 199 NLRB No. 100 706 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sion in Case 8-CA-6349, including certain pages of the record made in that proceeding before Trial Examiner Funke, and the Board's Decision and Order in the other prior related case as reported at 182 NLRB 111. At the conclusion of the hearing in this proceeding the Respondent renewed its objection to the receipt in evidence of the doc- uments relating to the prior cases, and moved to strike on grounds of the absence of any showing of relevancy or materiality. The Respondent's motion was taken under con- sideration, but for reasons related below I adhere to my ruling that the documents were properly received in evi- dence, and the Respondent motion to strike is denied.4 As related above the Respondent is a corporate entity and is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of metal housewares. Harry Schwartz, who is the president of the corporation and a director, is the sole owner of all shares of stock issued and outstanding from the corporation. In addition, Joseph L. Newman, who was counsel for the Re- spondent in this and the prior related proceedings, is the secretary and a director of the corporation, and Marvin Roseman is its vice president. Virginia Small was first employed by the Respondent on September 12, 1970, and, apparently worked for the whole term of her employment as a packer. Small's imme- diate superior was Mary Hyde, whom I find to be a supervi- sor and an agent of the Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(11) and (13) of the Act. The Union began an organizing drive among the Respondent's employees in March 1971.5 According to the testimony of Mrs. Small, as corroborated in part by the testimony of Frank Evans, a member of the Union's inter- national executive board, Small signed an authorization card, solicited other employees to sign cards, attended un- ion meetings, and was a member of the Union's organizing committee. On June 3, as a member of that committee, Small and other employees and union representatives met with agents of the Respondent in an attempt to settle a strike and arrive at a mutually agreeable date for a Board election. The Respondent's president, Harry Schwarts; its secretary, 'Joseph L. Newman; and its vice president, Marvin Rose- man, were present and participated in the meeting. It is uncontroverted, and I find that Virginia Small was engaged in protected activities on behalf of the Union, and that her union activities, interests, and sympathies were known to the Respondent. According to the testimony of Small, she became ill on the night of October 13, and attended a hospital where she was informed that she was in danger of having a miscar- riage. A clinical appointment was made for Small for the following day, October 14, but before attending the clinic she called and reported to Supervisor Hyde that she was ill and unable to report to work. At the clinic Small was sub- jected to pregnancy tests and the diagnosis of a danger of miscarriage was confirmed. Small again called Hyde and ° With respect to that portion of the record offered by the General Counsel from Case 8-CA-6349, the Respondent objected only to the receipt in evi- dence of pages 277 to 280, but did not object to pages 272 through 276. As the pages objected to pertain only to a colloquy between the General Counsel and the Trial Examiner relative to a proposed amendment to the complaints, the Respondent's motion to strike is granted to this limited extent 5 All dates recited hereinafter are in 1971 , unless specified to the contrary informed her of the illness and her inability to report to work. Hyde replied, "Virginia, you stay home and when you are able to come back to work you get your doctor's release and come back to work." Small continued under a physician's care until December 2, and obtained a doctor's release to return to work. In the interim Small had been subpenaed to appear as a witness in Case 8-CA-6349. Small was present at the hearing on November 9, and although she did not testify on that date her presence was observed by agents of the Re- spondent. On the second day of the hearing, November 10, Small was called and testified to her employment history and her activities on behalf of the Union. Small also gave evidence concerning the union activities of other employees alleged as discriminates in Case 8-CA-6349. At the conclu- sion of her testimony on direct examination, Small was cross-examined as follows: Q. (By Mr. Newman) You testified that you are presently in the employ of the Company? A. Yes. Q. When was the last time you worked? A. That was October the 13th. Q. And you have never been back to work since that date? A. No. Q. Do you still consider yourself an employee of the Company as of November 10, 1971? A. Yes. Mr. Newman: May I inform you that you are not in the employ of the Company? That is all: HEARING EXAMINER Did you understand that? THE WITNESS May I explain the reason? HEARING EXAMINER I don't know how you can ex- plain it-no, you are not-your discharge, if that is what it is, or termination. MR FIENBERG Is that effective today? HEARING EXAMINER. That is not an issue here. MR NEWMAN No, it's effective as of 10-25. As related above, on December 2, Small received a release from her physician which advised that she was not pregnant and could return to work. On December 3, Small called Supervisor Hyde, informed her that she had a release from the doctor, and was ready to return to work. Hyde replied that Small would have to go to the Respondent's front office and talk to Mr. Roseman. Small complied with Hyde's direction, and was told by Roseman that she had been on sick leave, had not called in, and, accordingly, Roseman had to replace her. It is the Respondent's contention that Mrs. Small was discharged for cause because she violated the Respondent's clear and published policy with respect to absences. More particulary, by its brief, the Respondent argues that Small did not have a leave of absence, did not conform with established company rules to report her absence , and was discharged before she ever appeared and gave testimony before the Board in Case 8-CA-6349. In addition, the Re- spondent argues that Small's testimony concerning her ill- ness lacks corroboration and that it is inherently incredible that Small was threatening a miscarriage and subject to a physician's care for a period of 2 months. The Respondent's case was adduced through the testi- G & S METAL PRODUCTS COMPANY 707 mony of its Vice President, Marvin Roseman, who testified that the Respondent's books and records are maintained under his supervision and control. Through Roseman the Respondent introduced four documents into evidence, con- sisting of Mrs. Small's employment application, her at- tendance record, a permanent record from her personnel file, and the disciplinary report relating to her discharge. The documents were offered and received as records kept in the ordinary course of business, and Roseman was not questioned concerning their contents on his direct examina- tion. In the absence of any questions to Roseman, or argu- ment by brief, I am unable to determine any relevancy from Small's employment application, which contains no more than certain personal data applicable to Small on the date of her hire. Small's attendance record contains some evi- dence of prior absences, but there is no contention that the prior absences were a consideration in her discharge. The attendance record does reflect that Small last worked on October 13, had an excused absence on October 14, and unexcused absence on October 15, and "Quit 10/25/71." The permanent record from Small's personnel file contains the notation, "Released: Nov. 5, 1971-Unreported Ab- sence." The last document, the disciplinary report relating to Small's termination, is dated November 5, signed by Mary Hyde, who did not testify in this proceeding, and contains the following remarks: VIRGINIA SMALL called in sick Monday, October 18th. She said she went to the doctor's and he told her she had a miscarriage. She said she didn't know that she was even pregnant since she had been taking birth control pills. She said she would return to work. It has been 3 weeks and I have not heard from her. Therefore, I am releasing her from G & S Metal Prod. as of this date. On cross-examination Roseman testified that he saw Small at the hearing in Case 8-CA-6349, but said nothing to her about her absence, or the discharge which had alleg- edly already occurred. With respect to when Small was discharged, Roseman related that "it was assumed she quit on 10/25 because we had heard nothing from her," but that Small's official release was on November 5. Roseman ad- mitted that the Respondent had Small's address and tele- phone number, but he did not know if anyone had called Small to inquire about her absence, or when she intended to report back to work, or whether Small was given notice of her termination. As to the date of December 3, Roseman testified that it was possible that Small called and asked to talk to him. Roseman further testified that pursuant to the Respondent's established policy 3 days unreported absence constitutes grounds for an automatic dismissal, but that termination notices are served on an employee only if the employee is present in the plant to receive the notice. I do not credit Roseman's testimony except where his version of the events and circumstances relating to the dis- charge of Mrs. Small finds corroboration in the testimony of other witnesses. Throughout the course of his testimony on direct and cross-examination, Roseman testified from the documents introduced in evidence and described above-indicating that he had no personal knowledge of the events leading to and culminating in the discharge of Mrs. Small. For reasons related below, I also find that Roseman's testimony concerning absences and leaves of absence is unreliable and a distortion of the Respondent's established policies. Nor do I accept the documents introduced through Roseman from Small's personnel file as dispositive evidence of the reasons for her termination. The documents may be from those records maintained by the Respondent in the ordinary course of business, but as I made clear in the record, without verification from the individual responsible for the entries, their contents constitute hearsay which may not be considered as probative evidence of the Re- spondent's contentions of discharge for cause. This rea- soning is particularly applicable to the termination or disci- plinary notice which is alleged to contain the Respondent's reasons for terminating Mrs. Small. Some of the reasons recited in this disciplinary notice contradict entries made on other documents from the Respondent's records. Far more crucial, nevertheless, is the Respondent's failure to call Su- pervisor Mary Hyde as a witness, particularly when viewed in the light of its admission that Hyde is still employed by the Company, and insofar as the record reflects, was avail- able to testify. On further cross-examination Roseman testified that 3 days unreported absence constitutes grounds for automatic discharge, but that this policy does not apply to sick leave. According to Roseman, if an employee calls in requesting permission to be absent for illness, the Respondent's policy allows some additional time beyond 3 days, depending upon the nature of the illness. Roseman related, however, that sick leaves have to be approved by a supervisor and must be in writing. The Respondent's policies pertaining to absences, sick leaves, and leaves of absence is contained in a booklet which is distributed to its employees. The booklet contains the following pertinent language: LEAVE OF ABSENCE AN EMPLOYEE MAY APPLY FOR A LEAVE OF ABSENCE FROM HIS FOREMAN, BUT MUST SUBMIT A GOOD REASON SO THAT THE LEAVE CAN BE ACCEPTED A LEAVE OF ABSENCE MAY BE ACCEPT- ED FOR A PERIOD OF NO MORE THAN 60 DAYS FOR THE FOLLOWING LIST OF REASONS- A) INJURY-MUST FURNISH DOCTOR' S RELEASE IN WRITING BEFORE RETURNING TO WORK B) SICKNESS-MUST FURNISH DOCTOR'S RELEASE IN WRITING BEFORE RETURNING TO WORK, EXCEEDING 3 DAY'S ABSENCE C) PREGNANCY-MUST FURNISH A STATEMENT APPROXIMAT- ING DATE OF BIRTH OF CHILD EMPLOYEE MUST THEN FURNISH DOCTOR'S RELEASE IN WRITING BEFORE RETURNING TO WORK D) DEATH OR ILLNESS IN EMPLOYEE'S IMMEDIATE FAMILY E) OTHER THAN ABOVE LISTED, NOT TO EXCEED 14 DAYS, MAY BE GRANTED BY THE COMPANY WITHOUT LOSS OF SENIORITY RIGHTS UPON APPLICATION OF THE EMPLOYEE AND WRITTEN PER- MISSION BY THE COMPANY, PROVIDED THE LOSS OF THE EMPLOY-, EE DOES NOT HINDER THE PRODUCTION PLANS OF THE COMPANY (THERE SHALL BE A MAXIMUM OF 2 LEAVES OF ABSENCE, OTHER THAN FOR INJURY AND SICKNESS IN ANY I8-MONTH PERIOD FOR ANY EMPLOYEE.) Contrary to the Respondent's contention, and on the basis of Small's uncontradicted testimony, I find that she was taken ill on the night of October 13 and reported to a 708 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD hospital. Small was examined and a clinical appointment was made for her for the following day . On the basis of Small's further uncontradicted testimony , I find that she called her supervisor before keeping the clinical appoint- ment to inform the Respondent of her illness and inability to report to work . After a clinical examination had con- firmed the prior diagnosis that Small was in danger of a miscarriage, she again called Supervisor Hyde , informed her of the nature of the illness, and advised Hyde that she would be unable to come to work. There is no contradiction of Small's testimony that Hyde told her to stay home until she was able to come back to work, and that Hyde reminded her to obtain a doctor's release when she was able to return. Small complied with Hyde's reminder and the Respondent's policy with regard to leaves of absence for sickness, and had a doctor's release when she attempted to return to work on December 3. On this evidence I find that Small fully complied with the Respondent's policy with respect to a leave of absence for sickness. Contrary to-the testimony of Roseman, Small was not required under the Respondent's leave-of-absence policy to put her request in writing . As to the Respondent's contention that Small failed to conform to its policy pertain- ing to leaves of absence for pregnancy by failing to furnish a statement giving the approximate date of birth of the child, I find the contention both ridiculous and absurd. Small did not request a leave of absence because she was pregnant and anticipated the birth of a child. She requested, and was granted, a leave of absence because she was ill and in danger of suffering a miscarriage . In this respect Small fully complied with the Respondent's policy pertaining to a leave of absence for sickness, as specified in subparagraph B, quoted above. On the whole of the record in this proceeding, I find that the Respondent's profferred justifications for the dis- charge of Small are hastily assembled pretexts , and that Smallwas discharged for reasons proscribed by the Na- tional Labor Relations Act. Until the date Small actually testified in Case 8-CA-6349, she had no notice from the Respondent that her right to be absent from work for illness was in jeopardy, or that she had in fact been terminated for an unreported absence . On two occasions during Mrs. Small's absence from work, her husband, Joseph Small, picked up her checks at the Respondent's office. Joseph Small was not asked any questions about his wife, and no mention was made of her alleged unreported absence from work. The record also reflects that the last paycheck to Mrs. Small on October 22 was not, like checks given to other employees discharged by the Respondent, marked as a "Fi- nal Check." In consideration of the Respondent's defense that Small was discharged for an unreported absence, I have also taken cognizance of the evidence that it is the Respondent's published policy to separate an employee im- mediately after 3 consecutive days of an unreported ab- sence. Small was not, however, discharged at the end of 3 days, but as the testimony of Rosemand and the Respondent's records reflect, it was assumed that Small quit on October 25, and her official termination did not occur until November 5. Upon the foregoing and all of the evidence in the rec- ord, I find and conclude that the Respondent 's discharge of Virginia Small was motivated by her appearance and testi- mony in Case 8-CA-6349. As a witness for the General Counsel, Small testified to her own union activities, and to the union activities of other employees named as discrim- inates in the proceeding before Trial Examiner John Funke. Immediately upon conclusion of the General Counsel's questions on direct examination , Small was notified of her discharge. I have found above that the Respondent's assert- ed reasons for Small's discharge are pretexts , but even in the absence of such finding, the timing of Small's discharge, when considered in relation to her appearance as a witness against the Respondent, urgently supports the conclusion that she was discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(4) of the Act. The General Counsel has also alleged that the Respondent's discharge of Virginia Small violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. As found above, Small was engaged in union activities and her activities, sympathies, and interests were clearly known to the Respondent . Small's discharge on November 10 was not isolated in point of time from her activities on behalf of the Union, and it may be that her appearance and testimony as a witness in Case 8-CA-6349 merely exacerbated the animus that the Respondent already harbored toward Small because of her union activities. There is, however, no evidence in the record before me upon which to predicate a finding of the Respondent's animus or hostility toward the rights of its employees to engage in union activities. As related above, the General Counsel contends that the Respondent's union animus is established in two prior Decisions, and he has requested that I take official notice of the Decision of Trial Examiner Funke in Case 8- CA-6349, as well as notice of the Board's Decision and Order as reported at 182 NLRB 111. The Respondent here was the Respondent in both prior cases , and "it is not error for a Trial Examiner to take judicial notice of a prior pro- ceeding before the Board involving the same parties .... "6 I view the Board's Decision and Order at 182 NLRB 111, nevertheless, as somewhat remote in point of time and circumstances from the case presently before me . That case involved a labor organization other then this Union, arose out of a different organizing campaign , and the Board found no violations of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. As to the Decision of Trial Examiner Funke in Case 8-CA-6349, that matter is presently pending before the Board on exceptions, and I cannot justifiably consider the Trial Examiner's find- ings and conclusions reflecting upon the Respondent's al- leged union animus and hostilty until the Board has disposed of the exceptions. I could, of course, delay the issuance of my decision here, pending a final Board Deci- sion and Order in Case 8-CA-6349,7 but in the light of the circumstances of this case I find that such delay is not warranted. At issue here is Mrs . Small's right to be reinstat- ed to her job and to be made whole for the losses she suffered because of the Respondent's discrimination against her. In view of the violation found above, and the remedy recommended below, I find that the policies of the Act would not be well served by delaying the issuance of this 6 N L.R.B v American Art Industries, Inc, 415 F.2d, 1223, 1227 (C.A. 5), enfg. 170 NLRB 571. 7 American Art Industries, supra, 170 NLRB 571. G & S METAL PRODUCTS COMPANY 709 Decision so as to find an additional violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. Accordingly, as such a finding would add nothing to the remedy recommended herein , I will further recommend that the 8 (a)(3) allegation be dismissed. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with its operations de- scribed in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and sub- stantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, I hereby make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent, G & S Metal Products Company, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union, International Union, Allied Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. By discharging Virginia Small because she appeared as a witness and gave testimony before the National Labor Relations Board, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(4) and (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, I will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative actions to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the Respondent discharged Virginia Small in violation of Section 8(a)(4) of the Act, I will recom- mend that the Respondent offer Small immediate and full reinstatement to her former job, with all seniority and rights and privileges she enjoyed prior to the act of discrimination against her, or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position. I will further recommend that the Re- spondent make Virginia Small whole for any loss of earn- ings she suffered by reason of the discrimination, by payment to her of a sum equal to what she would have earned in the absence of the discrimination , less net earn- ings during such period, with backpay computed on a quar- terly basis in the manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and the backpay shall carry inter- est at the rate of 6 percent per annum as established in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. I will also recom- mend that the Respondent preserve and upon request, make available to the Board all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary and useful to determine the amounts of backpay due and the rights of reinstatement under the terms of these recommendations. As the unfair labor practices committed by the Re- spondent are of such nature and character as to strike at the basic rights of employees safeguarded by the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist from infringing in any other manner upon the rights of its employees guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:8 ORDER The Respondent, G & S Metal Products Company, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging employees because they have appeared and given testimony in a proceeding before the National Labor Relations Board. (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative actions necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer employee Virginia Small immediate and full reinstatement to her former job, with all seniority and other rights and privileges she previously enjoyed, or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, and make Virginia Small whole for her loss of earnings in the manner set forth in the section of the Trial Examiner's Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Notify the above-named individual immediately, if she is presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of her right to full reinstatement upon application after discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Train- ing 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, person- nel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this recommended Order. (d) Post at its place of business at Cleveland, Ohio, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 8, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, shall be posted by the Respondent imme- diately 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 8 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. 9 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 710 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov- ered by other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in vent- ing, within 20 days of the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.1° IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the allegation that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act be dis- missed. 10 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 8 , in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the 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 discharge employees because they have appeared and given testimony in a proceeding before the National Labor Relations Board. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL offer employee Virginia Small immediate and full reinstatement to her former job, with all sen- iority, rights, and privileges she previously enjoyed, or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, and WE WILL make Virginia Small whole for her loss of earnings , with interest at 6 percent per an- num. Dated By G & S METAL PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC (Employer) (Representative) (Title) WE WILL NOTIFY the above-named individual immediately if she is presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of her right to_ full reinstatement upon application after discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Train- ing 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 compliance with its provisions may be direct- ed to the Board's Office, 1695 Federal Office Building, 1240 East Ninth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44199, Telephone 216- 522-3715.