Lord Industries, Inc.

LORD INDUSTRIES, INC. 419 Lord Industries, Inc. and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Imple- ment Workers of America. Case 7-CA-10187 November 19, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO ' On August 20, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Eugene E. Dixon issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,' the National Labor_ Relations, Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and -the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt-his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National' Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Lord Industries, Inc., Gaylord, Michigan, its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall.take the action set forTh in the said recommended Order. 1 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 Adnunistrahve Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 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_ DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE EUGENE E. DIxoN, Administrative Law Judge: This proceeding, brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136), herein called the Act, was heard at Gaylord, Michigan, on June 12 and 13, 1973. The complaint, dated April 20, 1973, based on charges filed March 6 and served March 7, 1973, by International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), herein called the Union, was issued by the Regional Director for Region 7 (Detroit , Michigan), on behalf of the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the General Counsel and the Board. The complaint alleges that Respondent, Lord Industries, Inc., had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices by discharging certain of its employees on or -about February 22, 1973, because they "joined, gave assistance to, and/or supported the Union, because they sought with other employees to bargain collectively through representa- tives of their own choosing, and because they had engaged in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection," ' all in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the` Act. In its duly filed answer Respondent denied the commis- sion of any unfair labor practices. Upon the entire record and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT At all times material Respondent, Lord Industries, Inc;, has been a corporation duly,organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Michigan and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Diehl Industries,, Inc. At all times material Respondent has maintained its principal office and place of business in Gaylord , Michigan, where it has been engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribu- tion of electrical wire harnesses and related products. During the-6-month period ending December 31, 1972, which covers the operation of Respondent since the opening of the Gaylord plant and which is.a representative period, the Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, purchased and caused to be transport- ed and delivered at its Gaylord plant steel, copper, wire, plastic, and other goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 which were transported and delivered directly from points located outside the State of Michigan. During the same period of time Respondent, in'the course and conduct of its business operations, caused to be manufac- tured, sold, and distributed at its Gaylord plant products valued in excess of $400,000, of which products valued in excess of ,$50,000 were furnished ,to enterprises, such as Ford Motor Company and Prestolite Corporation , each of which annually in the course and conduct of their business operations manufactures, sells, and distributes at its Michigan-plants products valued in. excess of $50,000, which are shipped from ' said plants directly to points located outsideethe State of Michigan. At all times material Respondent has been an' employer ,engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), at all times material, has been a labor organization-within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Respondent, a subsidiary of Diehl Industries, began operations in Gaylord, Michigan, in July 1972, manufac- turing electrical harnesses for the automotive industry. The Gaylord plant was run by Plant Manager James Long, under the general administration of John Morgan, vice president of the parent company. Morgan, whose head- 207 NLRB No. 69 420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD quarters were in Detroit, visited the Gaylord plant on an average of every 6 weeks but was in daily contact with Long by telephone. Sometime in November 1972 in a meeting with the employees Morgan suggested that an employee committee be organized to handle complaints and grievances with Respondent on behalf of the employees. The committee was formed being comprised of Gwendolyn Miller, Vera Pawneshing, and Virginia Kravetz. Several grievances were taken up with Long by the committee: wages, lack of insurance, paint fumes, no hot water, no doors on the toilet stalls, and lack of heat caused,by open doors in the shipping area necessitating working with overcoats and winter boots on.' The committee got no action on its complaints and discussion about them accentuated among the employees during their breaks and lunch hours. Finally during the lunch hour of February 16 the matter came to a head. The employees, all women totaling about 20 who were eating at adjacent tables, questioned whether they were ever going to get anywhere unless they had a union to represent them. A showing of hands was asked of those interested in getting a union-those definitely interested and not lukewarm about it. Thirteen out of the twenty raised their hands. As a result Gwendolyn Miller2 agreed to contact the UAW to see if a meeting could be arranged for the following Monday night. During the latter part of this discussion Herbert Combs 3 had come in and sat down at one of the tables. One of the girls tried to hush Miller, who was talking about contacting the' Union at the time. Miller said she did not care if Combs went out and told Long that they were going to contact the Union. As the meeting broke up Long himself (who sounded the call back to work) was seen standing at a workbench some 30 to 35 feet away and then was seen going over to talk'to Combs as work started. Over the weekend Miller was unable to contact the Union. On Monday, February 19, the employees wanted to know if there 'was to be a union meeting that night. Miller said no but that she would continue her efforts to reach a union representative that evening. That night she did get in touch with one who informed her that he was a service man not an organizer but that he would contact an organizer who would get in touch with them.' On Wednesday, February 21, in the afternoon, Morgan arrived in Gaylord. This was his first visit from Detroit in over 3 months notwithstanding that Long had been urging Morgan to come up since December because of the numerous problems in the plant needing his attention. The i The truck door was permitted to be open 30 to 45 minutes in 20 below weather. 2 Miller had previously worked in, another plant in Gaylord that made auto parts. She was familiar with the UAW and knew that local's president In addition, her husband worked for the Otsego Ski Club (from whom Respondent rented the building it occppied) in Gaylord and apparently was connected with the bartenders local union which was engaged in a strike at the club at this time. 3 Combs was a material man, an hourly paid employee who was not a supervisor. While I would not necessarily say he was a trainee, such as might be excluded from a bargaining unit, I do find that Respondent was planning to work him into a supervisory position in a second shift that Long had told the employees was being contemplated. According to several employee witnesses called by the General Counsel, Long had also told them that it was the intention to work Combs in as foreman. Significantly, Long's problems had to do with production efficiency as reflected in meeting delivery schedules and quality control which Respondent had experienced right from the start .4 In discussing the problems with Morgan over the telephone Long insisted that he was doing the best he could to solve them and agreed to "write up" employee shortcomings. When Morgan arrived on the 21st, he took all the personnel files to the hotel to go over that evening alone. On the basis of this examination he made a preliminary determination to let about 15 or 16 people go. But the next day on reviewing the files with Long the latter was able to cut Morgan's decision to 10, convincing him that the additional retentions were showing improvement. About 1 p.m. on February 4 Morgan had Long call Gwen Miller into the office. According to her testimony, Morgan asked her to have a seat and told her they were going to have to lay her off. She asked why and Morgan replied "lack of work." Miller asked if they were really "cutting back . . . that far" because she was seventh on the seniority list .5 At this point Morgan said, "Well, let's be honest, you were talking at your machine."6 Miller denied it. Morgan disagreed saying that they were going to lay her off anyway and that with her excellent work record she would not have any trouble getting a job elsewhere. Miller was then given her check and told that her current check would be mailed to her. Morgan also told her not to punch out, that he would punch her out and pay her to 3:30 because that was the least they could do for her. When Miller left the office and the plant with her check in her hand the other employees asked as she went by what had happened. She made no reply but simply held.up her check. This was explicit enough since payday was not until the following day. According to Miller's further testimony (as well as several other of the General Counsel's witnesses) talking in the plant at work was a pervasive thing engaged in by everyone including Long himself,7 notwithstanding that he continually was ordering them to desist often yelling at them from across the plant. After Miller's discharge during an ensuing break the girls decided that their committee ought to see Long to find out what had happened to Miller. Accordingly, Pawneshing asked Long for a meeting. Long asked the purpose and when he learned said, "Oh, I don't know" and started to walk away. Then apparently reconsidering he turned around and said that he would meet the committee at 3:30. Later, according to the testimony of committee member Virginia Kravetz, Long came to her and asked what the committee wanted to talk about. Kravetz said, "About testimony did not deny this, he just did not recall telling them this. I credit the General Counsel's witnesses. 4 According to Long, just after Respondent started operating, it lost a contract which caused the plant to close down That Long was exaggerating somewhat is apparent from the fact that the "shut down" lasted only overnight with a reduced complement of employees coming in for work the next day. 5 The list was posted on the bulletin board. 6 According to Miller's undenied and credited testimony, shortly after Morgan arrived on the 21st he came out of Long's office and stood watching her and two others work for about an hour and resumed his surveillance for a while the following morning T In his testimony Long admitted that he tried to talk to each employee at least twice a day but claimed that they were not working at such times. LORD INDUSTRIES, INC. 421 Gwen ... what happened to her ... why did she leave, was she fired...." Long said, "No, she was laid off." Then he indicated that he -did not think he should have to talk to them about the layoff because it was "Just a personal thing." According to Kravetz, the conversation continued as follows: And I said to him that I am sure one of the girls would call Gwen and find out from her why she left and he said to me, I don't think that Gwen would tell anybody why she left. It is just too personal and I said well, knowing Gwen I said the more personal something is the more likely she would like to say what it is. So, he said to me, well, if you tell me what girls want to know and I said all of us and then I said to him, can I ask you something, can I ask you something. I said does it have anything to do with the union. . . . He said yes. And I said well now, you've got the wrong girl. I said Gwen was not the first one to start talking union. She is only being used as a scapegoat.... He backed up behind me and'I turned around and I called him back and I said come back here I want to talk to you and he says I don't want to talk to you about it any more and then I said to him again, I said, please come back I want to talk 'to you. He said I don't want to talk about it any more. About 3 o'clock that afternoon some 9 or 10 girls were instructed to shut off their machines and go home without punching out. Twenty minutes later the remaining nine girls were told to turn off their machines. As they left the plant, Long was standing at the exit and handed each one a check with a white slip appended to it, which read: Due to circumstances beyond our control this is to inform you that your services are no longer required as of 3:30, February 22, 1973. Lord Industries, Inc., Gaylord, Michigan The following day, Saturday, only the 10 girls who had left early the day before were at work. According to the testimony of Gloria Kowalski (I of the 10) Long called them together and told them he was sorry they were so few and that now, they would have to work a little bit harder. He also said that they all knew what the wages and working conditions were when they hired in and that there was not much he could do about it. He further stated that "the place hadn't been open that long and that it was just too small . . . a place yet to have any kind of a union in it." He further made some comment to the effect that the dischargees "taking him to court ... would be just wasting next day he spent all morning and the- lunch hour with Long going over the employees' records with Long defending some on the grounds that while they were not satisfactory they were showing improvement . According to Morgan's testimony, it was his intention -to interview individually each of the employees that day, the retentions as well as the dischargees. To this end he picked a file at random for the first interview. It happened to be Gwen Miller's. Regarding the Miller discussion , Morgan testified that he asked her to sit down and told her that they were discharging her "based on her work performance, absen- teeism, talking . . ." and for "not really giving ... a fair day's work for a fair day's pay." Morgan was then asked if there was any discussion of safety . Morgan replied, "I-wait a minute, I take this back." He then testified that he did not say anything "about productivity or anything like that . . . to any great extent. Basically it was safety." According to Morgan's reassessed version Millers talking was the reason given her for her discharge. According to Morgan's further testimony he next called in Mary Parker,'one of the retained employees. But after a tearful session with her Morgan felt sorry for the employees and decided it would not be feasible to call them in one by one where each would have to walk into the office in front of all the others9 and so told Long to summarily discharge them as has been described. That night Long got a call from one of the dischargees, Virginia Sewell, who asked him, "Jim, will you tell me why you fired me.," Long's reply was, "... Virginia, I am at home. I am with my family. I am not at work and I am not going to discuss it with you." When Sewell pleaded for an explanation Long said, "Virginia, I don't want to be rude but I am not going to talk to you, I am going to hang up.... "Which he did! In his testimony Long denied that there was any mention in Miller's exit interview of her excellent work -record. As for Long's conversation with Kravetz regarding the requested committee meeting Long agreed with Kravetz' version with one exception. According to Long when Kravetz asked him if Miller's discharge involved the Union he answered, "I don't know what you are talking about, what union." He then said,, "I have nothing further to discuss with you" and turned and walked away. As for his meeting with the retained girls the next day the essential conflict between Long and the General Counsel 's version was that Long denied that there was any mention of the their money." In addition to all this he told them that the -Union or of court action.io Company would provide hot water, doors for the toilet Most of the General Counsel's witnesses impressed me as stalls, and a barrier for the cold let in through the shipping being truthful and forthright subject only to the frailties of department, but that he could not do anything about the human memory. Both Long and Morgan failed to inspire paint fumes. On the following day, Saturday, Long in me a similar reaction. For example, Long obviously was announced a 10-cent raise. The following week Respon- stretching the truth when he first testified that the loss of a dent put a want ad in the local paper for factory help. contract had caused the plant to be shut down early in its As indicated, Morgan had taken the personnel files to his operation. On his part Morgan muddied the water by his hotel on the 21st to determine from them the causes of the testimony (and his subsequent reaction of 'it) regarding plant's poor production and quality control problems.8 The what he told Miller on the occasion of a discharge. All in 8 The files contained only the W-2 forms, the employees' applications, felt he did not have time to do so. and any disciplinary writeups . 10 To the same effect was the testimony of Evelyn Westphal a witness for 9 Long's version was that Morgan decided not to call them in because he Respondent 422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR ,RELATIONS BOARD all on the foregoing I -credit the General Counsel's witnesses in any essential conflict with Respondent's.11 From Long's further testimony the following appears: Long never had occasion to discuss with-Pawneshing or Kravetz "the quality of ; .. their work." There were no safety- rules posted in the plant. While Respondent, had been "written up" for violations by the state safety department, talking was not one of those violations. Received in evidence were 17 written warnings directed to various discharged employees. These warnings involved largely three categories, excessive talking, poor efficiency, and absenteeism and tardiness. Respondent's chief objec- tion to talking at machines was that it constituted a safety hazard. Only three of these warnings were on printed warning forms, having spaces for first, second,,and third warnings and for the employee's , remarks and signature. The rest were on a "change of status" form with no space for employee comment or acknowledgment and designed for an- entirely different purpose than warning employees. Of the 17 warnings, 7 were dated on the date of the discharge, February 22, 1973, and none involved a third warning. With respect to one employee (Barbara Dipzin- ski) her February 22 warning was the only one pertaining to her. The evidence further shows that at no time were copies of the foregoing written warnings, ever given to or made known to the employees nor were they informed that they had been placed in their personnel files. Long testified that the reason he did not give the employees copies of the warnings was that he was too busy to do the paperwork involved. On the evidence here it is clear that no defense can be made on the basis of a lack of work notwithstanding all the testimony about "bread and butter" contracts or portions of such contracts being canceled. At - the time of the discharges Respondent was working an average of 8 hours a week overtime and a notice was already posted announcing work for, the following Saturday.' Respondent's'main defense is that it lacked knowledge of any union 'or concerted, activity on the part of the employees. The circumstances of this case viewing the record as -a whole in my opinion refute Respondent's contention. Citing N.L.R.B. v. Falls City Creamery Company, '207 F,2d 820 (C.A. 8, '1953), . and Indiana Metal Products' Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 202 F;2d 613 (C.A. 7, 1953), Respondent concedes that "there is some authority to'-the effect that in a small plant in a small town, knowledge on an employer's part of the organiza- tional activities of the employees can be inferred." But Respondent contends that such inference cannot stand in the absence of some direct evidence to support it. Whether or not Respondent is correct in this assertion the fact is that here there is some direct evidence bearing on the issue as shown by Long's remarks to the retained girls about the II In this connection a word about Kowalski's testimony She was a very frightened witness appearing under subpena at the call of the General Counsel. Notwithstanding that she was'currently employed by Respondent her damaging testimony was unshaken by searching and able cross- examination 12 And even as pretext some of the evidence adduced by Respondent does not stand up For instance with respect to Wanda Poleshuk, whose one warning on January 4, 1973, cited her for poor attendance record and poor attitude, her record shows that for the last quarter of 1972 she averaged 2 plant -being too new and small for a union and his admission to Kravetz that the Union played a part in Miller's discharge. I find that Respondent's contention that it had no knowledge to be without merit. Equally without merit is Respondent's contention that the discharges were for cause. In my opinion what little evidence of cause Respondent adduced was utilized as pretext to hide its real discriminatory motive.12 In any event, what substance there, is to Respondent's affirmative defense is overshadowed and made inoperative by the numerous indicia of discrimination shown by the prepon- derance of the evidence here. The timing of Morgan's visit just after the union activity (after he had disregarded urgent pleas for a visit for over 2 months by Long); the similar timing of the discharges without any explanation; the abruptness of the discharges before the end of the workweek; the claimed crisis aspect of the discharges 13 in the face of long existing conditions; the wholesale aspect of the discharges in the face of the trouble Respondent was having to meet delivery schedules on the Amosjob;14 the failure to give employees copies of the written warnings or to tell them that they were in their files; the failure to give them three warnings as provided for in Respondent's official warning forms; all this considered with other circumstances in the record as a whole convinced me that the discharges were discriminatory within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. I so find. IV. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent discharged Claudine Beck, Maria Cuda, Debra Dipzinski, Lillian Dipzinski, Mildred Fuller,' Virginia Kravetz, Gwen Miller, Vera Pawneshing, Wanda Poleshuk, and Virginia Sewell for engaging in activity protected by the Act, I will recom- mend that Respondent be ordered to offer them immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by payment to them of a sum of money equal to the amount they normally would have earned as wages from the date of their discharge to the date of an offer of reinstatement, less net earnings during said period, with backpay computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, 291-294, including interest as held in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. I shall also recommend that Respondent preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board payroll and all days' absence a month but was absent only I day in January 1973 and had no absences in February when she was discharged Similarly with Claudine Beck, she had no absences in February and had cut her tardiness 30 percent from January to February but notwithstanding this obvious improvement both were discharged. 13 Morgan testified that he felt the situation amounted to a crisis. 14 This was a big job Respondent was working on at the time on which they were having trouble meeting delivery schedules LORD INDUSTRIES, INC. 423 other records necessary to facilitate determination of the amount due under this Recommended Order. In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices committed, I am of the opinion that, the commission of similar unfair labor practices may be reasonably anticipat- ed. I shall therefore recommend that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from infringing in any other manner upon the rights guaranteed its employees by Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Lord Industries, Inc., is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. By discharging Claudine Beck, Maria Cuda, Debra Dipzinski, Lillian Dipzmski, Mildred Fuller, Virginia Kravetz, Gwen Miller, Vera Pawneshing, Wanda Poleshuk, and Virginia Sewell because of their union membership, sympathies, and activities, thereby discouraging member- ship in the aforesaid labor organization, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER i5 2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act-_ (a) Offer Claudine Beck, Maria Cuda, Debra Dipzinski, Lillian Dipzinski, Mildred Fuller, Virginia Kravetz, Gwen Miller, Vera Pawneshing, Wanda Poleshuk, and Virginia Sewell immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other, rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay they, may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against them in the manner provided, in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze and determine the amount of backpay due under The terms of the recommended Order. (c) Post at its place of business in Gaylord, Michigan, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." is Copies of said notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, shall be posted by it, immediately upon receipt thereof, after being duly signed by Respon- dent, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 15 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 16 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." Respondent, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in, or activities on behalf of, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), or any other labor organization, by discharging or in any other manner discriminating against them in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights to self- organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), or any other labor organization to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from engaging in such activities. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT discourage membership in, or activi- ties on behalf of, International Union, United Automo- bile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), or any other labor organization, by discharging or in any other manner discriminating against them in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist International Union, United Automo- bile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), or any other labor organization, to 424 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from engaging in such activities. WE WILL offer Claudine Beck, Maria Cuda, Debra Dipzinski, Lillian Dipzinski, Mildred ' Fuller, Virginia Kravetz, Gwen ' Miller, Vera Pawneshing, Wanda Poleshuk, and Virginia Sewell immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equiva- lent positions, without prejudice to their seniority 'or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against them. All our employees are free to become, or to refrain from becoming, members of any labor organization. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD LORD INDUSTRIES, INC. (Employer) Dated By (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 concern- ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 500 Book Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan 48226, Tele- phone 313-226-3200.