JFB Manufacturing, Inc.

2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD JFB Manufacturing, Inc. and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW). Case 30-CA-2260 December 28, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On August 15, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Leonard M. Wagman issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep- tions with supporting rationale. 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 has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclu- sions 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 Respondent, JFB Manufacturing, Inc., St. Ignace, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns , shall take the action set forth in the Administrative Law Judge's recommended Order. 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 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. Respondent also filed an exception to the finding that Chief Inspector Schlehuber made certain remarks to employee Belonga which constituted a violation of Sec 8(a)(1) of the Act The record evidence clearly establishes -as the Administrative Law Judge correctly described it elsewhere in his Decision-that it was Respondent Foreman Russell who told Belonga that "the company would someday better itself" and offer the employees "more " Accordingly, we correct this obvious inadvertency by the Administrative Law Judge in referring to Schlehuber when he meant Russell. Members Fanning and Jenkins find that Russell's remarks to Belonga, supra, constituted a promise of future benefits in violation of Sec. 8 (a)(1) of the Act. Chairman Miller disagrees with that finding of his colleagues He believes that Russell's remarks, unaccompanied as it was by any threatening statements or clear promises of benefits, should be construed as nothing more than an expression of opinion privileged under Sec 8(c) of the Act, to the effect that the Respondent hoped to be in a position sometime in the unspecified future to offer more to its employees in terms of wages and working conditions. In his view , such vague predictions are sufficiently 208 NLRB No. 3 uncoercive in effect as to negate a finding that they are , in any real sense, promises of future benefits in violation of the Act DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE LEONARD M. WAGMAN, Administrative Law Judge: Upon a charge filed by International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, (UAW) (referred to herein as the "UAW") on March 9, 1973, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board , by the Regional Director, Region 30, issued a complaint, dated April 12, 1973, against JFB Manufacturing, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) and 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended . Specifically, the complaint alleged that Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, by promising an employee wage increases to discour- age her support for the UAW; by coercively interrogating an employee concerning her union sympathies ; and, by announcing a freeze of wages until union negotiations were settled. The complaint also alleged that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging employee Gloria Belonga on or about March 9, 1973, because of her union activity and sentiment. At the hearing, I granted General Counsel's motion to amend the complaint to allege March 5, 1973, as the date of Gloria Belonga's discharge. Respondent filed an answer denying the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices. A hearing was held before me at St . Ignace, Michigan, on May 23 and 24, 1973, at which all parties were afforded full opportunity to present and meet evidence . General Counsel and Respondent have filed briefs. Upon the entire record in the case , from my observation of the witnesses,' and upon consideration of the briefs, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent, a Michigan corporation, has been engaged, since October 1972, in the manufacture of automotive wire assemblies at its St. Ignace , Michigan, plant. In its answer, Respondent admits that the projected annual gross revenues for its first year of operation will exceed $500,000; and that during the same period, it is projected that Respondent will sell and ship goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the State of Michigan. Respondent also admitted in its answer, and I find , that at all times material herein Respondent was an "employer" i The testimony of all witnesses has been considered . In evaluating the testimony of each witness , demeanor was relied upon. In addition, inconsistencies and conflicting evidence were considered. The absence of a statement of resolution of a conflict in specific testimony, or of an analysis of such testimony, does not mean that such did not occur See Bishop and Malco, Inc, d/b/a Walker 's, 159 NLRB 1159, 1161 (1966). Further, to the extent that a witness is credited only in part, it is done upon the evidentiary rule that it is not uncommon "to believe some and not all of a witness' testimony." N LR B. v. Universal Camera Corporation, 179 F 2d 749, 754 (C.A, 2, 1950) vacated and remanded on other grounds 340 U S. 474 ( 1951). JFB MANUFACTURING, INC. within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in "commerce" and in operations "affecting commerce," as defined in Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent admitted, and I find, that International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, (UAW) is a labor organization as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Relevant Facts 1. Respondent's plant organization and management Respondent came into existence in October 1972, and began production at its St. Ignace plant in December 1972. By March 5, 1973, Respondent employed between 25 and 30 employees on its day shift, and 10 to 15 employees on its night shift. At all times material to this case, Michael Shields was Respondent's general manager and vice president. During the same period, his subordinates included Plant Superintendent Emanual Swarez, Plant Manager Richard Wise, Chief Inspector Fred Schlehuber, and a night shift foreman, Wayne Russell.2 In its answer, Respondent disputed the General Coun- sel's allegations that Schlehuber and Russell were supervi- sors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act prior to their April 1973 promotions. As defined in that Section of the Act, the terms supervisor denotes: Any individual having authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend'such action, if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment. This section is to be read in the disjunctive; possession of any one of the enumerated powers establishes supervisory status. Eastern Greyhound Lines v. N.L.R.B., 337 F.2d 84, 87 (C.A. 6, 1964). Respondent's vice president and general manager, Shields, testified on this issue. His credited testimony in this regard shows that both Chief Inspector Schlehuber and Foreman Russell enjoyed sufficient authority to satisfy the requirements of Section 2(11) of the Act. Shields conceded that Russell ran the night shift, and had independent authority to issue disciplinary warnings to employees on that shift for misconduct. Shields also testified that Schlehuber, as chief inspector, trained and instructed Respondent's production inspectors in their duties, checked their work and directed them to take corrective action. According to Shields, if an inspector failed to follow Schlehuber's instructions, Schlehuber had independent authority to issue a disciplinary warning and 2 In April 1973, Respondent promoted Schlehuber to quality control manager and appointed Russell to be day-shift foreman. 3 did issue such warnings. In view of their authority to discipline and responsibly to direct employees in their work, I find that at all times material to this case Russell and Schlehuber were supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11). Rowe Furniture Corporation of Missouri, Inc., 200 NLRB No. I (TXD) (1972). Samsonite Corporation, Inc., 157 NLRB 35, 37 (1966). 2. Gloria Belonga's employment , union activity, and discharge Respondent hired Gloria Belonga as a night-shift production worker, at $1.70 per hour, on December 19, 1972. In later January or early February, Respondent transferred Belonga to in-process inspection, on the same shift, and at the same hourly wage rate. In Respondent's view, the full training period for inspectors is 30 days. However, Respondent's experience shows that a trainee can perform inspections after 1 or 1-1/2 weeks' on-the-job training. Although Belonga had a reputation for being tempera- mental and abrupt, her new immediate supervisor, Chief Inspector Fred Schlehuber sought her transfer to inspec- tion because he "felt that she was quite capable." He also observed that Belonga "did real good work ... and she seemed to be a responsible girl at that time." During the first half of February, notwithstanding Belonga's errors, Schlehuber praised her ability and performance in remarks to Belonga and to employees Shirley La Tour and Sharon Lasley. During the same period, Schlehuber learned that Belonga was at odds with day-shift inspector Shirley La Tour and had clashed with Foreman Wayne Russell. Schlehuber sought to remedy Belonga's errors and personality problems by discussion and counselling with her. Reports of Belonga's conduct and performance reached Vice President Shields, Superin- tendent Swarez, and Factory Manager Wise. In mid- February, after Respondent had given Belonga a written reprimand in the form of a warning slip for faulty work, Schlehuber and Wise conferred with her. Wise told Belonga that he "felt she would make a good inspector, that she had the intelligence to do the job." In discussing the warning slip, he expressed the view that it was "more of a personality problem than anything else." Finally, Wise and Schlehuber conceded that Belonga had not been at fault, tore up the warning slip, and granted her a 10-cent hourly wage increase.3 Belonga's union activity began in mid-February when she received and signed an authorization card for the Teamsters. During the third week, Belonga, at the request of George Dunlap, a Teamsters' representative, began organizing a meeting of employees to be held on February 25. On February 21, Teamsters' representatives appeared at Respondent's plant entrance, and were observed by Respondent's Vice President Shields as they handbilled and began organizing activity among Respondent's em- ployees. Inside the plant, Belonga, assisted by Shirley La Tour invited fellow employees to attend the scheduled meeting to discuss union representation. 3 According to Wise's credited testimony, such a 10-cent wage increase indicates successful completion of inspection training. 4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On Sunday, February 25, approximately 15 employees, including Belonga, met at the State Bar, in St. Ignace. Belonga showed the assembled employees a Steelworkers collective-bargaining agreement, discussed the benefits of union representation, and offered to contact a Steelwork- ers' representative the following week. During the week of February 26, Belonga contacted the Steelworkers and set up a meeting between the employees and a Steelworkers' representative for the afternoon of March 4. UAW Representative Schultze also solicited Belonga's efforts to set up a similar meeting for the UAW to be held on March 3. Belonga also organized a meeting for the Teamsters to be held on the morning of March 4. Gloria spread word of the scheduled meetings on the night shift and enlisted the help of other employees to notify the day shift. Gloria attended all three meetings. Respondent's management was well informed about the employees' union activity. Plant Manager Wise and Shields were both aware of the Teamsters' appearance at the plant on February 21. During the next 2 weeks, Chief Inspector Schlehuber and Foreman Russell informed Shields of the union activity at the plant. During late February, Schlehu- ber learned that Gloria was having "union meetings" with employees and reported this information to Shields. According to Belonga's credited and undisputed testimo- ny, during the week of February 19, after the Teamsters' appearance at the plant, she overheard Foreman Russell discussing union representation with employee Barbara Lannoo at work. Russell argued that the employees "were trying too quick, too fast to get it in." Belonga intervened, declaring that Russell "had no right to discuss union with the girls and that the union would be the best thing for our company." Approximately 1 hour later, Russell invited Belonga to his office, where he told her that the organizing campaign was untimely because "the company could not supply .. . what the union would offer." He recalled his own organizing effort in the city police and stated that he had "got into a mess up with it." Finally, he stated "that the company would someday better itself" and offer the employees "more." Belonga replied that she had "never seen any contract or anything stating this, and that [she] would only have to take his word for it." On the afternoon of Monday, February 26, Respondent's management, including Shields, Wise, Swarez, Schlehuber, and Russell, held their usual weekly meeting .4 In the course of the meeting, it was decided unanimously to "let [Belonga ] go the next time she goofs up." Swarez reminded his colleagues of Gloria's earlier difficulty with Foreman Russell and bemoaned Wise's destruction of her warning slip. On February 28, night-shift employee Malhot asked Belonga to identify some wires Malhot was about to use in her production. The question was whether they were "505" or "504" wires. It is undisputed that "505" and "504" wires are similar in appearance, except for a 2-or 3-inch a My finding as to the date of the meeting is based upon Schlehuber's credited testimony Respondent's claim that the meeting' occurred on Thursday, March 1 is supported only by Swarez, who testified that the meeting was postponed because of Shields' illness. However, Shields himself testified that such weekly management meetings were usually held on Monday, but made no assertion that he was ill on Monday, February 26. difference in length. Belonga examined the day-shift inspector Shirley La Tour's setup check at the employee's press which indicated that the wires to be used in the scheduled production were "505's," and gave her opinion that they were "505's." Belonga was uncertain and sought Foreman Russell's opinion. He concurred. When Belonga arrived for work on March 1, Chief Inspector Schlehuber handed her a'warning slip signed by him and Plant Manager Wise. The slip, designated "Ist notice," bore an "X" in the box next to "Defective Work." The "Remarks" portion of the slip stated: Gloria seems to be missing several problem areas. She is failing to find her shifts (sic) mistakes. Schlehuber also told Belonga that her error of the previous evening, when she had treated "504" wires as "505's" was the reason for the warning slip. He ignored her explanation of the wire incident, cautioned her to measure wires in the future, and told her that if she felt she could not continue as an inspector, "maybe you should step down, because if you receive another notice, out the door you go." On the morning of Friday, March 2, Belonga walked into Vice-President Shields' plant office and presented a letter to him reading as follows: 3/2/73 11:15 A.M. To whom it may concern: I hereby notify the JFB Corp., of St. Ignace, that I am organizing a labor Union (sic) to represent myself & fellow employees. /s/ Gloria Belonga witness: Marianna Paquin Shields read the letter and asked Belonga for an explana- tion. She replied that the letter was to "let him know exactly what [she] was doing." She then left his office and the plant. When Belonga returned to work on the second shift, that same day, she noted that Respondent had posted her inspection job. Foreman Russell met her and conducted her to Superintendent Swarez's office. Swarez asked Belonga if she wished to resign from inspection. She replied that "it was very clear" that Respondent wanted her to do so in view of the posting of her job. When Swarez renewed his question, Belonga answered, "yes, I feel I should. I really don't want to, but I feel I should." The discussion ended and she returned to the production area with Foreman Russell. Russell assigned her to reworking defective wire assem- blies known as "709's." Four other employees were engaged in the same production work at a single worktable. However, Russell stationed Belonga at a separate table although there was space for her near the four employees. Several times in the course of her work, Belonga conversed The remaining participants who testified about the date of the meeting admitted uncertainty as to the exact date, placing it in the week of February 26 In contrast, on direct and redirect examination, Schlehuber exhibited certainty that February 26, a Monday was the date of the meeting. In light of Shields' testimony, I am pursuaded that Schlehuber's testimony as to the date of the meeting is reliable. JFB MANUFACTURING, INC. with press operator Pat Green. At about 6 p.m., Foreman Russell directed Green to another work station across the room from Belonga's station out of voice range. Later in the shift, employee Lannoo finished her press work and went to Belonga's table to join in the "709" work. However, soon after her arrival, Russell moved Lannoo to another worktable with three other employees. After Belonga had reworked about 50 "709's," the night- shift inspector examined her work without complaint. However, Chief Inspector Schlehuber, who had returned to the plant, rechecked Belonga's work, found a few defective assemblies, then dumped all of her work on the table and ordered her to do them all over. Earlier in the evening, Foreman Russell had ordered Belonga to stop sitting on her worktable and to sit in a chair. After the lunch break, while Russell was seated near her on a worktable, Belonga questioned his order. After Russell explained that he didn't want her feet on the chair, it was agreed that she could sit on the table so long as she kept her feet off the chair. However, when Schlehuber saw her seated on the table, he complained to Russell who immediately told Belonga of the chief inspector's senti- ment. At this, Belonga resumed her seat in the chair. When Belonga came to work on Monday, March 5, she found her timecard missing and was met by Foreman Russell, who conducted her to Superintendent Swarez's office. There, in Russell's and Schlehuber's presence, Swarez handed her an "Employee Warning Notice" designated "Final," which he had signed. In the portion of the slip headed "Nature of Violation" the boxes designated "Defective Work," "Conduct," "Attitude," and "Disobedi- ence" were checked. The notice's "Remarks" portion noted: Very poor attitude-Surly Disobedience of instructions not to sit on work bench-you are a probationary employee being released-Defective work written previously-Does not meet our standards (sic). Swarez rejected Gloria's explanation that Wayne Russell had permitted her to sit on the workbench on condition that she kept her feet off the chair. Schlehuber also charged that Gloria's feet had been on the chair on the evening of March 2. When Gloria asked Russell to corroborate her defense, "[h]e shrugged his shoulders" without comment. Prior to this incident, Respondent had not advised Gloria that she was a "probationary employee .." Manager Swarez also declared that another reason for her discharge was that she was "throwing" 709 wires into a barrel. Gloria's protest that she "didn't really throw them" met with no response. At this point Gloria told the three supervisors that it was "very obvious, anything I'm going to say in here is going to be denied anyway." At this, she left. 3. Interference, restraint, and coercion In mid-February, the day after the Teamsters' represent- ative had handbilled in front of Respondent's plant, Schlehuber asked employee Florence La Tour who the men were. Mrs. La Tour first answered "you know who those men [are]." When Schlehuber denied such knowl- edge, La Tour told him they were union men. At this point, 5 Schlehuber asked her whether she would join the Union if the union succeeded in organizing the plant. La Tour answered "Yes, I would." Shortly after her discharge, Schlehuber observed Belonga passing out UAW cards at a St. Ignace drive-in restaurant. The following day, Schlehuber asked Florence La Tour what Gloria Belonga was doing. La Tour replied that Belonga was passing out union cards. A few days later, Belonga again passed out UAW cards at the same location. The next day, Schlehuber asked La Tour if she had been to the restaurant to see Belonga. Finally, Plant Manager Wise admits that on March 6, after receiving a letter from the Teamsters dated March 5, which claimed majority status among Respondent's em- ployees and demanded recognition and bargaining, Res- pondent posted a notice to employees stating: All Hourly Personnel Rates Are Frozen Until Union Negotiations Are Settled. Respondent removed the notice on March 7 or 8 without further comment or explanation to the employees. B. Analysis and Conclusions 1. Belonga's discharge In my view, there is ample factual support for the General Counsel 's contention that Respondent discharged Gloria Belonga because of her union activity. Respondent was aware of the Teamsters' organizing activity among its employees during the week of February 19. Further, during the same week Belonga revealed her prounion sentiment to Foreman Russell. As shown by my subsequent findings and conclusions , Respondent's hostility toward union activity was demonstrated by its resort to unlawful conduct designed to chill its employees' Section 7 activity. Thus, "it stretches credulity too far to believe that there was only a coincidental connection between" Belonga's expression of proumon sentiment ; her organizing activity at the plant during the week of February 19, including her meeting with employees on February 25; and, Respondent's decision on February 26 to discharge her "the next time she goofed up" Angwell Curtain Company, Inc. v. N. L. R. B., 192 F.2d 899, 903 (C.A. 7, 1951). Further showing of unlawful motive is provided by the fact that on February 26, there were no warning slips outstanding against Belonga. Indeed, Superintendent Swarez bemoaned the absence of the slip Factory Manager Wise had destroyed 2 weeks earlier. Thus, as of February 26, there was no basis for Respondent's decision other than the revelation of Belonga's leadership in the union campaign . Moreover, 2 weeks earlier, Wise had given her a merit wage increase and predicted that she would be a good inspector. It was only after Respondent discovered Belonga's union sentiment that it decided to seek a basis for her discharge. Finally, Respondent's unlawful design was evidenced by the timing of Belonga's discharge on March 5, the next working day after her written announcement to Vice President Shields that she was organizing his employees. That Belonga's announcement provoked Respondent's ire is manifest. For, that same evening of March 2, Respon- 6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD dent made certain that she was isolated from her fellow employees. In sum, the timing of Belonga's discharge so soon after her confrontation with Shields, and the circumstances surrounding the February 26 decision to discharge her, convince me that the sole reason for her discharge was her union advocacy, and that the reasons stated in Respon- dent's discharge notice were pretextual. Respondent asserts that it discharged Belonga because of disobedience of instructions not to sit on work benches, very poor attitude, defective work, and because, as a probationary employee, she had failed to meet Respon- dent's standards. I find no merit in any of Respondent's proffered reasons. Respondent's claim that Belonga was disobedient is based upon the two instances in which Russell instructed her not to sit on her workbench. However, I have found upon Belonga's uncontradicted testimony that in, both instances she fully complied with Russell's orders without incident.5 Nor is there any ground for finding disobedience in her sitting on the bench after lunch. For she did so only after receiving Russell's permission and in compliance with his instruction that she keep her feet off the chair. I find no basis for Respondent's further contention that Belonga exhibited a poor attitude by throwing completed "709" wires into a barrel on the night of March 2. Initially, this claim suffers from the infirmity of being an after- thought raised for the first time on March 5. For Belonga's credited and uncontradicted testimony reveals that neither Schlehuber, nor Russell, reprimanded her, or otherwise cautioned her about such conduct on March 2. Respon- dent does not claim that Belonga's tossing "709's" into a barrel damaged them. Nor is there any showing that Respondent had promulgated any rule prohibiting such conduct. On the contrary, I find from the credited testimony of employees Cheeseman and Lannoo that no such rule existed. Foreman Russell observed employees Cheeseman and Lannoo tossing 709's on the night of March 2, and helped Cheeseman pick up 709's which had missed the target. Further Respondent never cautioned either Cheeseman or Lannoo against tossing completed "709's" into a barrel. I find therefore that Belonga's tossing "709's" into a barrel was an accepted practice which only became objectionable when Respondent was looking for a reason to rid the plant of the leading union activist. In my view, far from helping Respondent's defense, its treatment of Belonga's error in identifying "504" wires as "505's" provides further evidence of Respondent's unlaw- ful intent. For as the facts show, Belonga's error was largely the product of an erroneous setup checklist prepared by another inspector and Foreman Russell's concurrence in Belonga's opinion. However, as the facts show Respondent failed to conduct any investigation, or even ask Belonga for her version of the incident. Nor does it appear that Russell or the other inspector were disciplined . These omissions contrast sharply with the action of Plant Manager Wise and Chief Inspector Schlehuber earlier in February when they investigated and revoked a warning slip issued to Belonga for faulty work. Also significant in this regard is Schlehuber 's admission that although he issued two warning slips to inspector Shirley La Tour for faulty work during March and April, she remains employed as an inspector . In my view, the explanation for this disparate treatment lies in Schlehuber's further admission that in February, La Tour advised him of her antiunion sentiment. Finally, Respondent's claim that Belonga was subject to a 90-day probationary period is unsupported by any evidence, and has not been urged in its posttrial brief. Moreover, it appears from the credited testimony of employees Belonga, Lasley, Florence La Tour, and Black that Respondent has not announced such a probationary period to its employees. In view of the foregoing, I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) when it discharged employee Gloria Belonga. Barnett Instrument Co., 173 NLRB 1397, 1399-1401 ( 1968) enfd. 415 F.2d 1974 (C.A. 6, 1969). 2. Interference, restraint, and coercion I have found that in mid-February, at the inception of union activity, Chief Inspector Schlehuber asked employee Florence La Tour whether she would support a union if it succeeded in organizing the plant. I have also found that shortly after employee Belonga's unlawful discharge, Schlehuber interrogated Florence La Tour about Belonga's union activity and her own. In light of Respondent's willingness to resort to unlawful discharge as shown by Belonga's discharge, I find the repeated interrogation of Florence La Tour was coercive and therefore violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Jervis Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 387 F.2d 107, 109, 111 (C.A. 6, 1967). I also have found that Schlehuber attempted to discour- age Belonga's union activity by calling it untimely, and recounting his own ill-fated experience . He then declared "that the Company would someday better itself" and offer the employees "more." I regard Schlehuber's remarks as a promise of future benefits if Belonga and her colleagues abandoned their present union activity. Accordingly, I further find that by such promise, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Plaskolite, Inc., 134 NLRB 754, 762 (1961), enfd. 309 F.2d 788 (C.A. 6, 1962). Finally, in view of Respondent's policy of granting a 10- cent hourly wage increase upon completion of an inspec- tor's training period , I find Factory Manager Wise's wage freeze notice "until union negotiations are settled" unlaw- ful. The wage freeze notice was in immediate response to the Teamsters' demand for recognition and bargaining. Wise's language indicated that because of the presence of that union, scheduled wage increases were being withheld. Accordingly, I find Respondent's wage freeze announce- ment violated Section 8(a)(1). Dan Howard Mfg., Co., 158 NLRB 805, 813 (1966), enfd. as modified in other respects 390 F.2d 304 (C.A. 7, 1968). That the notice was posted for 2 days and then removed does not remove the unlawful interference with the employees' Section 7 rights. For Respondent issued no notice revoking or repudiating the freeze notice. 5 Foreman Russell did not testify. JFB MANUFACTURING, INC. 7 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By discharging employee Gloria Belonga on March 5, 1973, because of her union activity, the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1). 2. By coercively interrogating employee Florence La Tour about her union activity and sentiment, and the union activity of employee Gloria Belonga, by promising benefits to pursuade employee Belonga to abandon her union activity, and by announcing the withholding of normal wage increases because of the receipt of a request for recognition and bargaining from a union, the Respon- dent 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, restraint, coercion, and unlawful discharge, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. This will require Respondent to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found, to offer reinstatement with backpay to Gloria Belonga and to post a notice to that effect. In accordance with usual requirements, reinstatement shall be to Belonga's former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority and other rights or privileges. Belonga shall be made whole for any loss of earnings she may have suffered by reason of the discrimi- nation against her by payment to her of a sum of money equal to that which she normally would have earned from the date of the initial discrimination against her (March 5, 1973) to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less net earnings, if any, during such period, to be computed in the manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950) and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). 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: ORDERS The Respondent, JFB Manufacturing, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership or activities in Internation- al Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, or in any other labor organization, by discriminating in any manner against any of its employees in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment, because of their union membership, sympathies, or activities. (b) Coercively interrogating employees about their union membership, activities, or sympathies or about the union membership, activities or sympathies of other employees. (c) Promising employees benefits to induce them to withdraw or withhold their support from the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, or from any other labor organization. (d) Advising employees that wages or benefits hre being frozen or withheld because of their union activity. (e) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Gloria Belonga immediate and full reinstate- ment to her former job or, if this job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her whole for such loss of pay as she may have suffered as a result of the Respondent's discrimination against her, in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy." (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, personnel 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 plant at St. Ignace, Michigan, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 7 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 30, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by it immediate- ly upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ- ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 30, in writing within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. 6 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 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. 7 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 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 or activities in International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, or in any other labor organization, by discriminating in any manner against our employees in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, or any term or condition of 8 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employment, because of their union membership, sympathies, or activities. WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees about their union membership, activities, or sympathies, or about the union membership, activities, or sympathies of other employees. WE WILL NOT promise our employees benefits to induce them to withdraw or withhold their support from the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, or from any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT advise our employees that wages or benefits are being frozen or withheld because of their union activity. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce any of our employees in their rights, given them by the National Labor Relations Act, including the right to self-organization, to form, join, or help unions, and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to refrain from any or all of these activities. The Board found that we discharged Gloria Belonga because she was for the Union and that this violated the law. Accordingly: WE WILL offer Gloria Belonga reinstatement to her old job or to a job substantially equivalent, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and will make her whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered because we discharged her, with 6 percent interest. All our employees are free to join, or not to join, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, or any other labor organization. Dated By JFB MANUFACTURING, INC. (Employer) (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Commerce Building, 2nd Floor, 744 North 4th Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203, Telephone 414-224-3870.