Piper Aircraft Corp.

16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Piper Aircraft Corporation, Plastics Division and Inter- national Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. Case 6-CA-6098 July 24, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND PENELLO On March 28, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Ber- nard J. Seff issued the attached Decision in this pro- ceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed a limited cross-exception and a brief in answer to Respondent's exceptions and in support of its limited cross-exception. 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 at- tached 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, as modified herein.' 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, as modified below, and hereby orders that Respondent Piper Air- craft Corporation, Plastics Division, South Renovo, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall take the action set forth in the said recom- mended Order, as so modified: 1. Add the following as paragraph 1(c): "(c) In any other manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act as amended." 2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a): "(a) Offer Kenneth Eschenbach immediate and full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, i The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge 's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 90 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3, 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of his discriminatory discharge, in the manner set forth in `The Remedy' section herein." 3. Substitute the attached notice for the notice rec- ommended by Administrative Law Judge. 2 General Counsel has excepted to the Administrative Law Judge' s failure to issue a broad remedial order We find merit to this exception We have found that Respondent violated Sec 8(a)(3) of the Act by discharging Ken- neth Eschenbach As this violation goes to the very heart of the Act, we find that a broad order is warranted Brad's Machine Products, Inc, 191 NLRB 274 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, an Administrative Law Judge of the National Labor Relations Board has found that we, Piper Aircraft Corporation, Plastics Division, violated the National Labor Relations Act, and has ordered us to post this notice and to keep the promises that we make in this notice. WE WILL NOT threaten you concerning your ac- tivities on behalf of the Union. WE WILL NOT discharge you for your activities on behalf of the International Association of Ma- chinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other union. WE WILL offer Kenneth Eschenbach immediate and full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of his discriminatory discharge, plus inter- est at 6 percent a year. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amend- ed. PIPER AIRCRAFT CORPORA- TION, PLASTICS DIVISION (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) 205 NLRB No. 2 PIPER AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 17 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, 1536 Federal Building, 1000 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222, Telephone 412-644-2977. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE BERNARD J. SEFF, Administrative Law Judge: The charge was filed on May 23, 1972.1 The complaint was issued on August 25. The hearing was held on December 13 and 14 at Lock Haven, Pennsylvania. The principal issues litigated were whether Piper, through two of its supervisors, by inter- rogation and threats violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and whether Respondent discharged employee Kenneth Es- chenbach for allegedly stealing an air drill press; or if the discharge was because of union activities and therefore vio- lative of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. Piper admitted jurisdic- tional facts but denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. Upon the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDICTION Respondent, a Pennsylvania corporation, has its princi- pal place of business in Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, where it is engaged in the manufacture, retail, and nonretail sale of aircraft. Piper has two other facilities located in Pennsyl- vania. The instant proceeding concerns the South Renovo plant. During the 12-month period preceding the issuance of this complaint the answer admits that Respondent re- ceived goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 di- rectly from points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for use at its South Renovo plant. I find that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. The answer further admits and I find that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. II THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Company's Supervisory Hierarchy Edward Blake-Piper's new Corporate Director of Administration. Top Management representative who reports directly to the President. 1 Dates are in 1972 unless otherwise indicated Homer J. Rose-Director of Labor Relations. Howard Smith-Toolcrib Supervisor at Lock Ha- ven, Renovo, and Quehanna plants. Glenn Jacobs-Renovo Division Manager or Super- intendent. Emanuel Makin-Manager of Security over all Respondent's operations. Richard Gehret-Fabrications Superintendent. William Dark-Division head in tooling. B. Background Respondent's employees have been represented only at the Lock Haven plant by the TAM for about 30 years. There is no union representing the employees at Renovo. Organi- zational efforts have been made at various times concerning Renovo but these efforts subsided until a strike that took place in Lock Haven and ended in February. At this time there was a resurgence of union activity at Renovo. The leading union adherent in the plant was Kenneth Eschen- bach. He gave out union cards, distributed literature outside the plant gate, arranged for and attended three union meet- ings, and talked up the Union in the plant during lunch and breaktime. During this period his activities were known to Respondent's supervisors and discussed with him by two such supervisors, Glenn Jacobs and Richard Gehret. C. Alleged Violations of 8(a)(1) Sometime during February or March, while Eschenbach was at his work station in the cutting room, Supervisor Gehret came to Eschenbach and said, "I was one of the leading organizers at Lock Haven." He then said, "You can get into a hell of a lot of trouble over it." At this point in the conversation Gehret told Eschenbach "he had better watch his step because Piper didn't need a union at South Renovo." Thereafter, on a number of occasions during the 3 months prior to Eschenbach's discharge, Gehret asked Eschenbach what he thought of the Union and again cau- tioned him that he had better watch his step. Eschenbach recounted another incident which took place sometime in March. Gehret approached him and in the course of the conversation that ensued Eschenbach said that a petition was going to be filed for an election before long. Subsequently, after the Easter vacation in April, Gehret came up to him near his burr and patch work place and said, "Well big shot I thought you and that damned union was going to petition for an election." Eschenbach rejoined that it was coming and Gehret allegedly said, "You had better watch your step, you're skating on mighty thin ice." This remark was overheard and corroborated by Ted Greene, a fellow employee, who was working in the area where Gehret had the above conversation with Eschenbach. The General Counsel, in his brief, points out that "two weeks later Es- chenbach was discharged." Eschenbach testified that sometime during the spring, Superintendent Jacobs approached him a number of times in the patch and burr section of the plant. It is not clear in the record if Jacobs repeated the following remark more than once but Eschenbach said, "Jacobs warned me that my union activities were going to get me fired some day." 18 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Both Jacobs and Gehret flatly denied the quoted state- ments attributed to them. The Respondent, in two sections of its brief, vigorously stated that there was no corrobora- tion of Eschenbach's recital concerning Gehret's remarks from Greene who was never called to the witness stand and therefore gave no testimony. The Company is in error. Greene did testify and did affirm two phrases of Eschenbach's testimony: "you better watch your step- you're skating on thin ice" or words that sounded like that. In Gehret's version of this discussion with Eschenbach he claims he said: How are things going. Kenny replied "they're going to getjust what they want . . . we've got 30 cards signed up-we're going to have a vote. Gehret replied, Well, Kenny, this has always been your right.... We've told you that since we've come up here. And our position as far as the Company has been con- cerned is look: We can operate this plant without a union. Give us a chance. If we don't do the proper things you always have that alternate (alternative) to go and vote for a union. Conflicts in testimony will be resolved infra in the instant decision under the caption "Credibility." D. The Incident Concerning the Alleged Theft of the Drill Press An employee , Paul Embick, stated that about a week before Eschenbach's discharge (April 21) he told Superin- tendent Jacobs that he had heard from another employee, James Watt, that a sander belonging to Respondent had been seen in a Renovo garage operated by James McGow- an. Watt credibly testified that he never spoke to Jacobs in connection with property in this garage, did not see any such property there, nor did he observe Eschenbach placing any property at McGowan's garage. Jacobs passed informa- tion concerning the tool on to Emanuel Makin who is Respondent's manager of security . Makin, accompanied by Howard Smith, Piper's toolcrib supervisor, paid a visit to the McGowan garage on April 21. They did not have a search warrant but claimed they were given permission to look over McGowan's tools. McGowan denied he gave Smith permission to examine the tools. In any event it is not disputed that Smith did in fact examine some tools found in the garage . Smith, who was looking for a Datco grinder, found no grinder but located an Aro air drill press which he allegedly identified as being a Piper tool. When queried about where McGowan had gotten it McGowan said it had been loaned to him about 2 or 3 years ago by someone named Charles Moore. McGowan also stated that all the tools in the garage belonged to him and he could prove it. Meanwhile the Company, from a list it had, allegedly identified the tool as having serial number T 387518. Ma- kin did not initially recall the serial number but after some testimony said positively that a company inventory showed the tool belonged to Piper. Mysteriously the tool seems to have disappeared. Makin did not take the tool with him, did not return to the inside of the garage, and made no effort to recover it from McGowan. While in the garage, Makin told McGowan, "Your buddy [Eschenbach] will be fired for this." It is not denied that Eschenbach and McGowan were friends. Makin also did not press charges against McGow- an. It should be noted that during cross-examination Makin told conflicting stones about whether he ever returned to the garage. Finally he said he accompanied Edward Blake (Respondent's director of administration) to the "premises" on which the garage was located. There is no testimony that anyone had ever seen Eschenbach remove the air drill press from the Renovo facility. The procedure to secure a tool from the toolcrib was as follows: a leadman could request a tool from the toolcrib attendant. It was signed for in triplicate; one copy was put on a clip board kept in the crib, one copy was kept by the Company, and one copy was given to the employee. The Respondent used its copy to make a notation on a 3 x 5 card which was retained in a box in the crib. When a tool was returned the copy on the clip board was returned to the employee who then usually tore up his two copies. The toolcrib attendant, leadmen, and other employees have ac- cess to the crib. Leadmen and the attendant have keys and while it is clear Eschenbach also had a key as pointed out by the General Counsel anyone in the crib had equal access to the 3 x 5 box and if Eschenbach wanted to remove the clip board record of his grinder and thus cover up his al- leged taking and failure to return it, he could also have destroyed the card index record. There is no such evidence in the record. The company card contains the notation: "Department 731, K. E. 3/ 1 /71." Toolcnb attendant, Francis Conti, con- firmed that he had charged the tool out to Kenneth Eschen- bach whose initials he had placed on the card. About mid-day on April 21, after examination of toolcrib records and the interview with Conti, Makin informed Rose (the then director of industrial relations) that Smith and he had found a drill motor which they concluded belonged to Piper in McGowan's garage and which had been charged out to Eschenbach. Rose then spoke to Blake who instruct- ed him to give Eschenbach a hearing and to terminate Es- chenbach if he could not explain why the drill was in the garage. Thereafter, in the afternoon of April 21 a meeting took place in Jacobs' office; Jacobs, Makin, Rose, Smith, and Eschenbach were present. Makin stated that Eschenbach was charged out with a drill press that was allegedly found outside the plant. Eschenbach asked if he was being charged with stealing. Makin said, "not directly but that the Compa- ny knew he took it." Eschenbach retorted that "he was 42 years old and had never stolen anything in his life. Anybody who charged him with theft would have to fight him." The record shows on direct examination he answered this ques- tion: Q. Did you ever steal any property from Piper Air- craft? A. Never. The Company's brief underlines its contention that Eschen- bach did not deny he took the air press drill. The above PIPER AIRCRAFT CORPORATION quotes constitute a total denial. Eschenbach then said he had a wife and five children and no unemployment protection. If Piper wanted him to pay for the tool he would do so. The Company seeks to make much of this statement arguing that-if he did not take the tool-why should he offer to pay for it. Blake contended that only because he was convinced of Eschenbach's guilt did he reach his determination to fire him. On reflection, however, it is not difficult to understand that a man, faced with loss of his job and his income, with a large family to support, was desperately anxious to avoid the loss of his livelihood. Under these circumstances it is understandable that an employee might offer to pay for the tool in order to protect his family. This conclusion is fortified by the fact, not denied on this record, that it was not an unusual event for an employee who could not account for a tool to offer to pay for it. The record is devoid of evidence to show that anything was said during the exit interview about Eschenbach's bad work record or reprimands. In fact it was only during a meeting Blake held with McGowan to diplomatically smooth over McGowan's feelings of anger involving Piper and the incident of the drill press that Respondent be- thought itself of Eschenbach's work history. Blake testified that he gave this reason to McGowan. Unsatisfactory work record. In fact, at that time, it was after this meeting that I decided it would be "habitual violation of Company rules and unsatisfactory work record." The meeting between Blake and McGowan took place some days after Eschenbach was discharged. Blake was asked if he had discussed Eschenbach's work record with Rose before he went to see McGowan. He answered, "Very lightly, very very lightly." Blake said he was not personally familiar with Eschenbach's work record. He said he had only a 5-minute telephone conversation with Rose about Eschenbach and was not too concerned with his work record. Blake testified that he gave Rose the following instruction about the possibility of discharging Eschen- bach: I told him that if Mr. Eschenbach couldn't explain why the drill was at the garage, to terminate him and I went further to say he could negotiate the termination be- cause I would rather not make it for theft both for his sake [McGowan's] and mine. Blake further said he had told McGowan that he had come to the garage because of all the rumpus. He added: I didn't know about the incident over the weekend. I appreciated his cooperation in letting my fellows go in. I also came up there to get the evidence. My fellows [Makin and Smith] didn't bother to get the evidence. They just took a number and left. It should be further noted that Respondent had put up a notice in the Lock Haven and Renovo plants dated April 5, 2 weeks before Eschenbach was discharged. The notice (G.C. Exh. 3) applied to all Piper plants in Pennsylvania. In relevant part it read: On Tuesday, April 4, 1972 it was agreed between the Company and the Union that we eliminate the present demerit system and to clear all personnel records of dements. 19 The record continues: Q. Mr. Blake, was it your intention in authorizing the posting of this notice to all supervisors to clear the slate, so to speak, of past derelictions of duty and start off fresh? A. Yes, sir. Q. May I ask this question: absent the incident con- cerning the drill press, would this man be discharged? A. [Blake]: It wouldn't have brought anything to a head. There would be no reason to discharge him. In fact, my review of the record when I talked to anyone con- cerned-I said, "Why wasn't he terminated long ago?" But this was before my time... . Q. It is significant tome as a trial judge that whatev- er the derelictions were, they lasted for 8-1/2, 9 years, and nothing was ever done about it. A. [Blake]: That's right. E. Eschenbach's Bad Work and Reprimands The record is replete with notations in Eschenbach's per- sonnel folder going back all the way to 1964. It should be noted that when Rose, the then director of labor relations, was asked about these notations he characterized them as being "mostly minor." Rose also testified that only approxi- mately a dozen employees had been disciplined and they were mostly employees who had worked for the Company for relatively short periods of time-a year, 2 years. In the dozen he said, "I am not counting those who were terminat- ed during their probationary period." Rose further testified as follows: Q. Were any of them discharged for the kind of reasons that you have explained relate to Mr. Eschen- bach? A. None discharged, although severe disciplinary action was taken on some. Q. What constitutes "severe disciplinary action" short of discharge? A. In one case, a suspension of one month. About a year prior to his discharge, Eschenbach witnessed a South Renovo employee, Clarence Pickering, loading company property into his station wagon. This was brought up to the attention of Jacobs on the day it occurred. No action was ever taken against Pickering who is still em- ployed. Other employees, who were caught in the act of removing company property, were not disciplined with the extreme penalty of discharge. For example, employees Bea- le and Fetter were apprehended by a guard in May 1971 removing gasoline from the plant and received only 1- month suspensions. To quote from the General Counsel's brief, "Eschenbach, on the other hand, was summarily dis- charged even though he was never observed actually remov- ing the tool that Respondent accuses him of pilfering. The disparity of treatment is glaring." The Company went to great lengths in its attempt to justify the discharge of Eschenbach based on what the Re- spondent chooses to call his "abominable record" and 20 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD "poor track record." Piper dredged up a series of com- plaints, one of which went all the way back to 1964 plus others up through 1971. These complaints encompassed his use of vulgar language to a group of female employees-this last is a commonplace occurrence in contemporary industri- al life; a failure to punch his timeclock card at a time when he experienced substantial eye discomfort from flying pieces of plastic; and the making of bad parts on a certain evaporator cap which Eschenbach admitted but explained as having been fabricated in accordance with faulty instruc- tions from Jacobs . Despite all his alleged faults Eschenbach never received a written warning or any other imposition of discipline. Furthermore the Company's then director of la- bor relations characterized these incidents as being minor matters In any event, despite his allegedly bad performance on the job, he was promoted to the position of leadman which job he occupied for 3 years . It was not controverted that he was never removed from this position by the Company and in fact stayed on performing this job because the Company said it needed him, despite his request to give it up. At one time he had 36 employees under his direction. Most important Blake, who made the decision to fire Eschenbach , testified that he did so solely because Eschen- bach removed a tool from Respondent 's plant and not be- cause of his work record with which Blake testified he was unfamiliar. Therefore the record shows that but for the circumstan- tial, inconclusive totally uncorroborated accusations con- cerning the drill press Eschenbach would not have been discharged . The Company's reference on the termination slip "Terminated due to repeated violations of Company rules and improper conduct," admittedly authored by Blake, seems to be a sheer afterthought and was untrue. F. Company Knowledge of Union Activities It is uncontroverted that Jacobs and Gehret were aware of Eschenbach's union activities . While I found Blake to be a generally credible witness and he denied knowledge of Eschenbach 's union activities it seems highly unlikely that when the complaints were brought to Blake about Eschen- bach that besides the discussion of the loss of the tool no mention was made of Eschenbach 's union activities. I draw this inference because of Respondent 's shifting reasons for the discharge. The Company in effect told Eschenbach on April 21 that it believed he stole the tool and fired him. On April 24 he was given a termination slip which gave as the reason for his discharge "repeated violations of Company rules and improper conduct ." About a week later, at the end of a plantwide talk on safety, Jacobs told the employees the reason Eschenbach was discharged had nothing to do with the theft of a tool. Neither the violation of company rules nor the alleged theft stand up under critical analysis. When the asserted reasons for the discharge given by the Company are shifted there must have been some other reason I conclude the reason given for the discharge was a pretext and that the real reason was due to Eschenbach 's union activities . This is buttressed by Gehret's remarks that the Company did not need a union in its Renovo plant. Accordingly, and for the reasons stated, I find and con- clude that Eschenbach was fired in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. G. Credibility 2 I do not believe that Plant Manager Jacobs warned Es- chenbach that his union activities were going to get him fired some day. Jacobs was a member of the Union at the Lock Haven plant. He came up through the ranks and became a division manager . In this capacity it became part of his duties to deal with the Machinists union in the handling of grievances. The Union never filed any complaints against Jacobs per- sonally. It is highly unlikely that a supervisor with years of experience in handling labor problems at Lock Haven and at Renovo would baldly threaten an employee with dis- charge because of his union activities . It is elementary in dealing with labor problems that such a threat is violative of the law. On the whole I was favorably impressed with Jacobs' demeanor while he was testifying. I credit Jacobs and recommend that the allegation in the complaint that he told Eschenbach that his union activities were going to get him fired some day be dismissed. On the other hand, Richard Gehret was garrulous and made a rather poor witness. It is likely that he went out of his way to make a taunting remark about what progress Eschenbach was making in his attempt to unionize the em- ployees at Renovo. I credit Eschenbach who testified that Gehret said: "You better watch your step, you're skating on thin ice." This incident was corroborated by employee Ted Greene. The words attributed to Gehret fit more closely the kind of shop talk Gehret had with Eschenbach than the version of this conversation given by Gehret. Gehret's ver- sion of this talk is too studied and too pat to be believed. Gehret admits he said , " .. . we can operate this plant without a union . Give us a chance. . .. " This language contains a thread of talk which more likely would be made in shorthand shop talk as "you better watch your step- you're skating on thin ice." My evaluation of Gehret' s testi- mony makes it seem probable that he made the statement attributed to him and I credit Eschenbach on this point. Such language carries an implied threat of discharge. It is therefore violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I so find. Eschenbach appeared to be tense and somewhat combat- ive in his demeanor. It should be kept in mind that he was fighting for his livelihood and the well being of his wife and five children . Respondent calls attention to certain inconsis- tencies in his testimony. It is not suprising that any witness would have difficulty recalling insignificant events some of which occurred years ago. It should also be remembered 2 1 have considered the testimony of all witnesses, including those whose testimony I neither accept nor refer to In evaluating the testimony of each witness I have relied specifically on his demeanor and have made my findings accordingly Apart from considerations of demeanor I have taken into con- sideration inconsistencies and conflicting evidence If, in any specific in- stance , I have failed either to detail resolutions of conflicts or to have analyzed specific testimony it is for the reason that, in my judgment, this Decision would only be to that extent encumbered , and no advantage to the understanding of my findings would be served Bishop & Ma/co, Inc, 159 NLRB 1159, 1161 PIPER AIRCRAFT CORPORATION that Eschenbach was on the witness stand for a long time. His testimony spanned over 88 pages in the transcript and included about 62 pages of grueling cross-examination. For the most part and viewed overall I found him to be a credi- ble witness. Summary I have found that Gehert coercively interrogated Eschen- bach and threatened him when Gehret said, "you better watch your step-you're skating on thin ice." Eschenbach was the most active union man in the Renovo plant. The Company's defenses included a number of stale incidents which were of minor nature and were so described by the director of labor relations, Rose. In any event all past dere- lictions of duty were canceled by Blake' s issuance of a no- tice to supervisors in all the Company's operations. This notice was issued on April 4, 1972, more than 2 weeks before Eschenbach was fired. The purpose of this notice was to wipe the slate clean. Further, it is to be noted that the complaints about Eschenbach could not have been serious since he was promoted to the position of leadman. He held this position for 3 years and when he requested to be re- lieved of these duties the Company asked him to stay on in this capacity because Respondent needed him. It is significant that he was an 8-1/2 year employee. The record contains evidence that no long-time employee had ever been discharged for removing company property. The heaviest penalty imposed was a month's suspension. Es- chenbach never received a written warning and had never been disciplined prior to his discharge. The disparity of treatment accorded him indicates a serious defect in Respondent's defenses. The precipitating and only cause for Eschenbach's dis- charge according to Blake who discharged him concerns the alleged removal by him of an air drill press and its alleged appearance in the garage of his friend McGowan. Blake told McGowan, and I credit McGowan, that his boys (Ma- kin and Smith) did not get any evidence to support the charge against Eschenbach; they only took down a number supposedly stamped on the tool. Mysteriously the tool dis- appeared and no effort was made to secure it by the Re- spondent. Nowhere does the record show that Eschenbach stole or removed the air press drill. Whatever evidence does appear is circumstantial and inconclusive . It should also be noted that while in the instances where property was seen being removed from Respondent's property the termination notices as to short time employees who were fired clearly stated the discharge that resulted to be due to "stealing." The termination notice received by Eschenbach states the reason for the discharge to be repeated violations of the Company's rules and improper conduct. The shifting defen- ses of the Respondent create doubt in my mind. Respon- dent contends that Blake, who made the final decision to fire Eschenbach, had only occupied his position with the Company for a month before the discharge; that Blake knew nothing about Eschenbach's union activities. Blake denied that he had such knowledge. While generally Blake impressed me as a reliable witness it strains credulity to accept this assertion. He had admittedly discussed Eschen- bach with Rose and Jacobs. I infer that Eschenbach's union 21 activities were mentioned in their conversations. Based on the above and the entire record, I find that Eschenbach was discriminatorily discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. III THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section II, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burden- ing and obstructing commerce and the free flow of com- merce. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By discharging Kenneth Eschenbach on April 21, 1972, because of his support and activities on behalf of the Union, the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 2. By its discharge of Eschenbach and by threatening that his union activities put him in danger of discharge the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY The recommended Order will contain the conventional provisions in cases involving findings of interference, re- straint, coercion and unlawful discharge, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. This will require Respon- dent to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found, to offer reinstatement with backpay to Kenneth Es- chenbach, and to post a notice to that effect. In accordance with usual requirements, reinstatement shall be to Eschenbach's former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights or privi- leges. Eschenbach shall be made whole for any loss of earn- ings he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him by payment to him a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned from the date of the initial discrimination against him (April 21, 1972) to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less net earnings, if any, during such period, to be computed in the manner pre- scribed 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: 22 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDERS The Respondent, Piper Aircraft Corporation , Plastics Di- vision, its officers , agents, successors , and assigns, shall: I. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership and activities in Interna- tional Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, South Renovo plant, or in any other labor orga- nization, by discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment, or in any other manner in regard to any term or condition of employment , of any of the Respondent's employees, in order to discourage union membership or activities. (b) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their union membership , activities, or sympathies ; or in any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. (c) Threatening employees concerning their activities on behalf of the Union. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which is deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Kenneth Eschenbach immediate and full rein- 3 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 statement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privi- leges, and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of his discriminatory discharge, in the manner set forth in "The Remedy" section herein. (b) 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. (c) Post at its South Renovo, Pennsylvania, plant copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 4 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 6, after being duly signed by the Respondent's rep- resentative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including 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. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 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 read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "