Precision Tool and Die Mfg. Co.

PRECISION TOOL & DIE MFG. CO. Frank S. Malek and Azzetta G. Malek, Partners, d/b/a Precision Tool and Die Mfg. Co. and Dan- iel Baughman. Case 6-CA-6413 August 2, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND PENELLO On April 9, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Thom- as Wilson issued the attached Decision in this pro- ceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and General Counsel filed limited cross-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 at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs I and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusion 3 of the Administrative Law Judge as here- in modified, and to adopt his recommended Order. 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 Respondent, Frank S. Malek and Azzetta G. Malek, Partners, d/b/a Precision Tool and Die 1 Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied In our view, the record, exceptions, and briefs adequately present the positions of the parties 2 General Counsel takes exception to the inadvertent failure of the Admin- istrative Law Judge to dispose of certain 8(a)(I) complaint allegations based upon the following incident The credited evidence establishes that Malek told employee Dean Attleberger in June 1972 that he knew that the signature of Attleberger's son, employee Ronald Attleberger, was on the petition earli- er drafted by Baughman, and that his son was not in a very good position associating with people like Baughman We agree with General Counsel that this statement contained an implied threat that employees would suffer if they engaged in protected concerted activities similar to those engaged in by Baughman and Attleberger in draft- ing the petition to which Malek referred In that respect, we find it violates Sec 8(a)(I) Contrary to General Counsel, however, we do not find that Malek's indica- tion to Dean Attleberger that he knew that Baughman was the instigator of the petition supports the finding that Malek created the impression that the employees were under surveillance in violation of the same section of the Act As found by the Administrative Law Judge, the petition was openly circulat- ed in the plant with the knowledge of Respondent's supervisory personnel We shall therefore dismiss the allegation that the Respondent engaged in unlawful surveillance of its employees' concerted activities 3 Although we affirm the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that Respondent violated Sec 8(a)(I) of the Act by discharging Baughman, we do not adopt his further finding that Respondent thereby also violated Sec 8(a)(3) of the Act As the Administrative Law Judge apparently framed his remedial order to remedy the violations found herein, our additional findings require no modification in the order 205 Mfg. Co., Oil City, Pennsylvania , its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Administrative Law Judge's recommended Or- der. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that paragraph 5(a) of the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE THOMAS S. WILSON, Administrative Law Judge: Upon a charge duly filed on November 9, 1972, by Daniel Baugh- man, an individual, referred to herein by name or as the Charging Party, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, referred to herein as the General Counsel I and the Board, respectively, the Regional Director for Re- gion 6 (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), issued a complaint dated December 29, 1972, against Frank S. Malek and Azzetta G. Malek, Partners, d/b/a Precision Tool and Die Mfg. Co., herein referred to as the Respondent. The complaint alleged that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended, herein referred to as the Act. Respondent duly filed its answer admitting certain allega- tions of the complaint but denying the commission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing thereon was held before me in Oil City, Pennsylvania, on February 1, 1973. All parties appeared at the hearing, were represented by counsel, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to produce and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence material and pertinent to the issues.' At the conclusion of the hear- ing, oral argument was waived. Briefs have been received from General Counsel and Respondent on March 1, 1973. Upon the entire record in the case and from my observa- tion of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT The complaint alleged, the answer admitted, and I find that: Respondent, a Pennsylvania partnership with its princi- pal office and sole place of business located in Oil City, Pennsylvania, is engaged in the nonretail manufacture of machined parts. During the 12-month period immediately preceding the issuance of the complaint, Respondent from its Pennsylvania facility shipped goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the Common- wealth of Pennsylvania and to employers within the Com- 1 This term specifically includes the attorney appearing for the General Counsel at the hearing 2 General Counsel's motion to correct the record, dated February 27, 1973, is hereby granted in the absence of objections 205 NLRB No. 66 206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD monwealth of Pennsylvania who themselves are directly engaged in interstate commerce. Accordingly, I find that the Company is now, and has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Thanksgiving First day of deer season Christmas a.-1: These holidays will be paid in the pay period in which they occur. If an employee works on a holiday, he will be paid time and a half plus his paid holiday. 11 THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Facts Daniel Baughman began his employment with Respon- dent some 16 years ago. He worked steadily thereafter for Respondent until September 12, 1972, when his employ- ment suddenly came to an end under circumstances which will be more fully described hereinafter. Frank Malek started his 19-year-old son "Butch" 3 work- ing in the shop some 7 years ago. Malek had him working with Baughman in order to learn the trade. After a couple of years, it became apparent that Baughman and Butch did not get along, so at that time Malek separated the two and assigned Butch to another portion of the plant. However Baughman and Butch continued to remain antagonistic, a fact which was well know throughout the plant. Sometime in late May 1972,1 Baughman and a fellow employee, Ronald Attleberger, and a few other employees were not too satisfied with the benefits they were receiving in the shop. Baughman and Attleberger particularly dis- cussed the possibilities of securing a better paid vacation plan, retirement plan, insurance premiums paid equally by the employer and employee, time and a half for work over 8 hours, and paid holidays. They discussed with almost all the other employees, with the exception of Butch, the possi- bilities of drawing up a petition requesting such benefits from Respondent. Following such discussion, Baughman and Attleberger drew up a rough draft of such a petition which was further discussed with their fellow employees individually in the shop during working hours. Foreman Edward Tecza was among those with whom such discus- sions were had at this time. As a result of these numerous discussions in the plant with their fellow employees and Tecza, Baughman and Att- leberger drew up the following proposed petition which Baughman had his wife type up at his home: To: Management of Precision Tool & Die Mfg. Co. From: Employees of Precision Tool & Die Mfg. Co. Subject: Employee Benefits We, the undersigned, have discussed the following benefits and wish to present them to you for your con- sideration. A. Paid Holidays: We wish to have eight paid holidays. These being: New Year's Good Friday Memorial Day Independence Day Labor Day 3 Young Malek, Jr., will be referred to by his nickname hereinafter in order to distinguish him from his father All dates are in the year 1972 unless otherwise specified. B. Overtime: Anything after eight hours a day will be paid time and a half, including Saturday and Sunday. C. Pension Plan: The pension plan that was agreed upon will be put into effect before or on July 1, 1972 for all eligible employees. Those employees who are not eligible will be compensated with a bonus equal to what the management would have paid into the pension plan if they were eligible. D. Vacation: Paid vacation according to the following schedule: After 1 year-1 week After 5 years-2 weeks After 10 years-3 weeks After 15 years-4 weeks E. Hospitalization: Insurance to be paid on the same employee-management ratio as in the past. Signature of employees: After the petition had been typed, Baughman brought it back into the plant where he showed it to Foreman Tecza and employee Ramond Schmader who again discussed the matter. As a matter of fact it was Tecza who was one of the first to suggest that the men should draw up a list such as appears in the petition. At this conference, Baughman sug- gested that Tecza take the petition into Malek. Tecza re- fused on the grounds that he, Tecza, was really in the middle between Malek and the employees. Thereafter, Baughman showed the typed petition to the various employees in the plant and solicited their signatures to the petition. This activity went on for about a week. The effort was not very successful as only four employees, in- cluding Baughman and Attleberger, signed. About the middle of June, Malek and Tecza met in the plant at Schmader's machine where Malek inquired as to why the men were dissatisfied, that he had heard there was a list of demands and wanted to know if the men were starting a union. Tecza told him that there was a list and that if he wanted to see it Tecza would get it for him. Malek did not want to see the list. Tecza told him of the demands, particularly about overtime and holiday pay. Either at this or at a subsequent meeting on the same subject between Malek and Tecza, Malek told Tecza that Respondent would grant this or that of the listed demands and authorized Tecza to inform the men to that effect. Tecza did so. During this meeting, Malek inquired if Baughman want- ed to be the steward. It was soon known in the shop that some of the demands had been granted and that Malek had said he was still studying a pension plan. As a matter of fact since that time Respondent has paid for the holidays at the time of the holiday as requested in the petition. However, Malek appar- PRECISION TOOL & DIE MFG. CO. ently is still studying a pension plan. Due to the limited success in securing signatures to the petition and the granting of some of the demands listed on the petition, Baughman put the petition into his workbox about the middle of June where it has remained since. With that the agitation for improved working conditions died a natural death. Hence Baughman never presented the petition to Malek, and, therefore, officially Malek was never apprised of the petition discussed, prepared, and circulated by Baughman and Attleberger.5 About the end of June, Malek was at the work place of W. Dean Attleberger, father of Ronald Attleberger, talking about a work problem. When the discussion concluded, Malek and Attleberger got to talking about the petition. Malek stated that he knew that Baughman was the instiga- tor of the petition and suggested that Attleberger's son, Ronald, was not in a very good position associating with people like Baughman. Malek requested that Attleberger speak to his son about associating so much with Baughman. As a result of this conversation, Dean Attleberger did speak to Ronald Attleberger telling him that Malek "had his best interest at mind" about his association with Baugh- man. From this time on, things were quiet in the shop until September 12, except for the fact that Malek paid the em- ployees for the July 4 holiday at the time of the holiday, one of the demands made in the petition. On the morning of September 12, Butch reported for work late. It was not unusual for employees to come in to work late in the shop. In fact, from the testimony this seems to have been a most usual event in the plant. Baughman himself was frequently late in reporting to work-often to the accompaniment of boos and catcalls from Butch. Boos and catcalls for such late reporting was not unusual in the plant either. So, on September 12, as Butch walked into the plant, following a bawling out from his father for his failure to pick him up at the garage as previously arranged, Baughman greeted Butch's delayed arrival with an appropriate boo or hooray. Butch immediately changed his direction and rushed over to Baughman's work station, took a swing at Baughman, and collided with him, knocking Baughman on to a work bench and ultimately, entangled with Butch, onto the floor. The men quickly separated with no further dam- age. Upon hearing the commotion caused thereby, Malek rushed out of his nearby office and said, "What the hell goes on here?" and then, turning to Baughman, he said, "Why don't you get the hell out of here." To that Baughman replied, "If that is the way [Malek] felt, that he [Baughman] was going." Thereupon Baughman put his tools into his toolbox, re- quested and received permission to go to the hospital to 5 Malek during his testimony denied any knowledge of the petition until after September 12, but admitted that in June Tecza had informed him of the complaints being voiced by the employees about overtime and the pay- ment of the holidays at least 6 Malek acknowledged having spoken to Dean Attleberger about his son Ronald's association with Baughman at this time 207 attend to his back, and departed from the shop. He has not worked there since. Baughman promptly applied for unemployment compen- sation. In answering the questionnaire of the Unemploy- ment Compensation Commission inquiry on Baughman's application, Respondent answered that the separation of Baughman was "permanent" for the reason that Baughman "refused to cooperate and he was an agitator and a problem employee."' B. Conclusions There are really only two questions to be answered in the instant case: (1) Did Baughman voluntarily quit his employ- ment as alleged in Respondent's answer; and (2) did Baughman's concerted activities, i.e., his leadership in the work with other employees on the petition regarding wages, hours, and working conditions applicable to all the men in the shop, have anything to do with the termination of his employment on September 12. The scuffle between Butch and Baughman and the end of Baughman's employment were to all intents and purposes simultaneous and part and parcel of the same event. While it is true that Baughman's booing at Butch's late arrival for work was, as it turned out, the very beginning of the fracas which took place, such boos at this time were commonplace in the plant, especially between Butch and Baughman, who everybody knew were not the best of friends. Butch booed Butch's late arrivals. Baughman booed Butch's late arrivals. And such booing was not confined to these two, according to the evidence here. Between Butch and Baughman such greetings were not altogether friendly but, from the experi- ence of the past years, were not considered to be "fight talk." However, on September 12, Butch, who obviously was not in the best of moods after Malek's bawling him out for not having picked him up at the garage as arranged the evening before, took offense at the boo and rushed Baugh- man with fists flying. As Butch had to go a considerable distance out of his way to his work place to get up to Baughman, Butch must be considered the instigator and aggressor of the physical assault which followed. Due to the commotion caused thereby, Malek came from his nearby office after the men had been pulled apart, or- dered Butch to his work bench, and then turned to Baugh- man with the remark, "Why the hell don't you leave." Although the word "discharge" never entered the conver- sation, Baughman promptly picked up his tools and depart- ed. Any reasonable man would have considered himself discharged at this time. Malek's testimony as to whether or not he discharged Baughman at this time is considerably confusing. He testi- fied as follows: Q. (By Mr. Ferber) Was Mr. Baughman discharged, for fighting with your son? A. Right, well, he wasn't discharged, I suppose he quit I still contend he quit. Q. Did you discharge Mr. Baughman for fighting 7 During his direct examination, Malek originally denied that he had made such answers to the Commission, but finally admitted that the office girl had been instructed by him to so answer the questions. 208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD with your son. A. He quit on his own, I gave him an option. s s s Q. Did you discharge Mr. Baughman as a result of the fight with your son? A. I did not discharge Mr. Baughman. Q. But on this slip from the unemployment compen- sation, which has been marked General Counsel's ex- hibit 3, you have examined that? A. I examined that, and I gave him an option. s s s s JUDGE WILSON Mr. Witness, you are saying that you gave him an option, what option did you give him? THE WITNESS Of staying on or leaving. Q. (By Mr. Ferber) Did you tell him to leave? A. I didn't tell him to leave, I suggested, I said why don't you leave. Q. Well, does that mean that you discharged him? A. No, it doesn't mean that I discharged him? Q. So you did not discharge him? A. No. Q. But you didn't mention that to the Unemploy- ment Compensation did you? A. I took it for granted, - Q. Not what you took for granted. JUDGE WILSON Let him finish his answer. THE WITNESS I left it up to him whether he wanted to be fired or quit. I was sympathetic in his case, and I felt that if he wanted to draw his compensation, until he could find employment, it was all well and good with me. [Emphasis supplied.] JUDGE WILSON I don't quite understand that, you may have misspoken yourself, you said that you gave him an option of being fired or quitting, is that right, is that what you meant to say? THE WITNESS No, I meant this, I gave him an option of staying on or leaving. JUDGE WILSON That's what I thought you said the first time, and the second time I heard it differently. However, despite this testimony, Respondent's report to the Unemployment Commission on the matter showed that Baughman's separation was "permanent" and because Baughman "refused to cooperate and he was an agitator and a problem employee." This answer quite clearly proved, contrary to Malek's alleged "misstatement," that Respondent did in fact dis- charge Baughman. Any reasonable employee after hearing Malek's words would reasonably consider himself fired. If this was not Malek's intention, then it become incumbent upon him to so notify Baughman promptly upon discovering that Baughman was no longer reporting for work. This Malek did not do although he testified that he "expected" Baugh- man to come to him to "talk" the matter over. However, Malek never contacted Baughman after September 12 in order to correct the alleged error. Under these circumstanc- es, the facts require a finding that the "option" Malek gave him was in fact "to quit or be fired" and that Baughman was in fact discharged. I find no evidence to indicate that Baughman voluntarily quit his employment. That brings us to the second question: Did Baughman's concerted activity have anything to do with his discharge? In his testimony Malek denied having any knowledge of the Baughman-Attleberger petition, as well as that said peti- tion played any part in Baughman's separation. The Baughman-Attleberger petition was concerted activi- ty in that it was the combined effort of not only the spon- sors, Baughman and Attleberger, but of all the other employees in the shop to improve their wages, hours, and working conditions for all those employed in the shop. This was protected concerted activity.' This concerted activity and Baughman's part therein was known to and, in fact, was engaged in by Foreman Tecza so that technically at least Respondent knew thereof through Tecza's supervisory sta- tus. However, the evidence does not require such a technical finding of Respondent's knowledge because the proven facts also show that Tecza informed Malek of this concerted activity and of the employees' demands in the latter part of June in the shop. He even offered to get the petition for Malek. This caused Malek to inquire as to whether the men were trying to form a union and whether Baughman intend- ed to become its shop steward. After Tecza had presented some, if not all, of the demands contained in the typed petition, Malek authorized Tecza to inform the employees that certain of their demands would be granted and some refused while he was continuing to "work on a pension plan." Hence it is clear that, contrary to his testimony, Malek personally knew of the concerted activity and of Baughman's leadership therein. While it is no doubt true that the fracas was the event which sparked Malek's invitation to Baughman to leave the shop, Malek's answer to the Unemployment Commission is conclusive that, despite the lapse of time from the end of June to September 12, Malek had not forgotten the part Baughman played in the concerted activates regarding the petition when he stated the reason for Baughman's perma- nent separation from Respondent as being "refused to co- operate and he was an agitator 9 and a problem employee." From his 16 years of employment, it is quite clear that Baughman was none of these things-until the advent of his work on the petition. Respondent's answer to the Commis- sion is quite conclusive proof that that matter played a definite part in Malek's invitation to Baughman to leave on September 12. The fight was merely the pretext by which 8 N L R B v Washington Aluminum Company, Inc, 370 U S 9 (1962), Hugh H Wilson Company, 414 F 2d 1345 (C A 3, 1969) Guernsey-Muskin- gum Electric Cooperative, Inc, 124 NLRB 618 9 Malek's use of the word "agitator" here regarding Baughman makes sense if the reference, as I find, was to Baughman's protected concerted activities on the petition It does not if, as Malek claimed, it was intended to refer to Baughman's alleged use of vulgar language As noted above, Malek's attempted explanation of various facts were not convincing It is interesting to note that Butch may have been reprimanded, but not discharged, because of the fight PRECISION TOOL & DIE MFG. CO. Malek rid himself of the leader of the concerted activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. I so find. III THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent, set forth in section II, above, occurring in connection with the operations de- scribed in section I, above, having close, intimate, and sub- stantial relationship 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. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action de- signed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Daniel Baughman on September 12, 1972, because of his protected concerted ac- tivities, I will recommend that Respondent offer him full and immediate reinstatement to his formerjob or, if that job no longer exist, to a substantially equivalent position with- out prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of said discrimination against him by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he would have earned from the date of the discrimination to the date of Respondent's offer of reinstatement less his net earnings during such period in accordance with the formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest thereon at 6 percent per annum. Because of the type of unfair labor practices engaged in by Respondent, I sense an opposition by Respondent to the policies of the Act in general and I deem it necessary to order Respondent to cease and desist from in any manner interfering with the rights guaranteed its employees in Sec- tion 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of facts and upon the entire record herein, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Daniel Baughman because of his protected concerted activites, Respondent has engaged in and is en- gaging in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. 2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its em- ployees in the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclu- sions of law, and the entire record in this proceeding, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER 10 209 Respondent, Fred S. Malek and Azzetta G. Malek, Part- ners, d/b/a Precision Tool and Die Mfg. Co., Oil City, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging, threatening to discharge, or otherwise discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ- ment or of any terms or conditions of employment of any of its employees because of their concerted activities or other activities guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. (b) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coerc- ing our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Offer to Daniel Baughman immediate and full rein- statement to his former job or, if that job no longer exist, 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 by reason of said discrimination against him in the manner set forth in the section of the Decision entitled "The Remedy," with interest thereon at 6 percent per annum. (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 Order. (c) Post at its Oil City, Pennsylvania, facility copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 11 Copies of said no- tice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 6, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employee are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said no- tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other mate- rial. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. It is further recommended that, unless Respondent noti- fies said Regional Director within 20 days from the date of this Decision, in writing, that it will comply with the fore- going Order, the National Labor Relations Board issue an Order requiring the Respondent to take the action afore- said. 10 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 11 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." 210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT in any manner discharge, threaten to discharge, or discriminate in regard to the hire and tenure of employment or of any term or condition of employment of any of our employees because of their concerted protected activities or because of any action by said employees guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL OFFER to Daniel Baughman immediate and full reinstatement to his former job or , if that job no longer exist, to a substantially equivalent position with- out prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privi- leges and WE WILL pay him for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of our discrimination against him, together with interest thereon at 6 percent per annum. WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with , restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join or assist a union of their choice, to bargain collectively through a collective-bar- gaining agent chosen by our employees, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar- gaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any such activities. Dated By FRANK S . MALEK AND AZZETTA G. MALEK PARTNERS, D/B/A PRECISION TOOL AND DIE MFG Co (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 direct- ed to the Board's Office, 1536 Federal Building, 1000 Liber- ty Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222, Telephone 412-644-2977.