Leslie Metal Arts Co., Inc.

LESLIE METAL ARTS CO., INC. Leslie Metal Arts Company, Inc. and Betty McDo- nald. Case 7-CA-10237 January 10, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND PENELLO On July 31. 1973, Administrative Law Judge David S. Davidson issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and General Counsel filed a brief in response to exceptions of Respondent. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labo - 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 briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions I 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, Leslie Metal Arts Company, Inc., Grand Rapids, Michigan, its officers. agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the sr id recommended Order. I As the employees in the instant case did not seek to protest management's selection of its supervisors, we neither adopt nor pass upon the Administrative Law Judge's obiter dictum that the banding together of employees to protest "e ten management's choice of supervisors is protected concerted activity." DECISION ST4'rEMF..NT OF THE CASE DAVID S. DAVIDSON, Administrative Law Judge: Pur- suant to a charge filed on March 20, 1973, by Betty McDonald, an individual, a complaint issued on May 3, 1973, alleging that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening employees with disciplinary action, suspending Adrian Knoll, Michael Wildfong, Alice Le- nard, and Betty McDonald, and subsequently discharging Betty McDonald. all because they engaged in a protected concerted withholding of their services in order to protest certain terms and conditions of their employment. In its answer Respondent denies the commission of any unfair labor practices. t Unless otherwise indicated, the findings which follow are based on a composite of the testimony of McDonald, Lenard, Adrian Knoll, and Don 323 A hearing was held before me on June 14, 1973, at Grand Rapids, Michigan. At the conclusion of the hearing oral argument was heard, and a brief has been received from Respondent. There is no dispute that the four named employees were suspended and that McDonald was discharged. The principal issue is whether their activities which caused the suspensions and discharge were concerted activities pro- tected by Section 7 of the Act. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent, a Michigan corporation, is engaged in the State of Michigan in the plating and manufacture of dies and automotive parts. During the calendar year 1972, Respondent sold products valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped directly to points outside the State of Michigan. I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Facts 1. Background and events before March 9 At the time of the events involved herein Betty McDonald, Alice Lenard, Kathy Gallegos, and Jane Johnson all worked in the plating department in Respon- dent's Grand Rapids plant 2 on the second shift under the supervision of Paul Voorheis.I McDonald had worked in that department as a chrome racker since 1966. From mid- September 1972 until January 29, 1973, she was on sick leave. At the time she went on sick leave, none of the other three worked as chrome rackers. During McDonald's absence, Gallegos and Lenard both started to work as chrome rackers and were working in that capacity when McDonald returned to work. In mid- February, Lenard transferred to another department. However, about 2 weeks later an opening was posted for a chrome racker, Lenard requested it, and on March 22 Lenard was transferred back to chrome racking. On Monday, March 5 Johnson also was transferred to chrome racking. There is considerable evidence that relations between Gallegos and Johnson on the one hand and McDonald and Lenard on the other were strained and deteriorating before and after this date. Gallegos had dubbed Lenard "bitch," and Gallegos made statements to Johnson and others, which came to McDonald's attention, that she was going to call the wives of second shift platers Adrian Knoll and Mike Wildfong and tell them they were playing around with other women. Knoll was married to McDonald's daughter, and Wildfong was married to McDonald's niece. A further conflict and complaint arose from the performance of the racking work. The rackers were paid on Brown There is little conflict in their testimony as to the essential facts 2 All dates which follow occurred in 1973. unless otherwise indicated 208 NLRB No. 51 324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD a piece-work basis, but with a maximum on the amount they could earn on one shift. Some parts were considered more desirable to rack because of the prices they bore. McDonald and Lenard believed that Gallegos and John- son had at times maneuvered to gain the more desirable parts for themselves to rack leaving the less desirable parts for them. There is evidence, less definite in nature, that complaints also had been made against McDonald by Gallegos and others. On Tuesday, March 6, Voorheis asked Lenard to work as an unracker, a different job in the same department. Lenard protested the assignment on the ground that she had been on the racking job longer than Johnson. Voorheis rejected her protest, but Lenard was not required to work as an unracker that night. On Wednesday night, Lenard and McDonald separately spoke to Plant Superintendent Don Brown about Lenard's transfer to unracking, contending that Johnson should be transferred because she had less seniority in the depart- ment. Brown, however, took the position that under Respondent's seniority' policy, Lenard was the appropriate person to be transferred as she had less seniority in the plant. Lenard told Brown that if she was required to unrack, she would go home. Later that night, when Voorheis instructed her to unrack, Lenard left the plant. The next night she returned to work and was disciplined. She was given a written warning with the explanation that because it was busy a 1-day suspension provided under Respondent's rules had been waived. That night, Thursday, Lenard worked as an unracker, and the other three worked as rackers. During a break McDonald stopped work, but Johnson continued to work and finished a rack which McDonald had started. Johnson got credit for the performance of that work. Although McDonald was not thereby prevented from earning the maximum rate for the shift, she viewed Johnson's action as an attempt to pick on her and complained to Voorheis. He agreed that Johnson should not have finished McDonald's rack, but attributed Johnson's conduct to aggressiveness and said that he wanted to see Johnson earn the maximum like anyone else. That night, McDonald also complained to Brown about the incident and her belief that Gallegos and Johnson were teaming up against her in order to pick the parts they wanted to rack and to leave the less desirable parts for her. In response to a question by Brown, McDonald said she thought she was being picked on. McDonald also mentioned Gallegos' threats to call Knoll's wife. Brown commented that the latter was a personal matter and said that he would talk to Voorheis about her other complamts.3 2. The March 9 chair incident and walkout On Friday, March 9, at the 6:30 p.m. break period, McDonald and Gallegos stopped racking while Johnson continued to work. McDonald and Gallegos sat in the only two chairs available near their work location. Lenard, who 3 McDonald so testified According to Brown, he told her that he did not like the petty bickering in the department and that he was going to call a departmental meeting to resolve it Although I believe Brown that he told McDonald that he did not like the petty bickering in the department. I credit McDonald that Brown did not mention calling a departmental was working as an unracker that night, came by to talk with McDonald. While they were talking, Gallegos got out of her chair and went to talk with Johnson where she was working. Lenard sat in the chair that Gallegos had vacated. Gallegos immediately returned and told Lenard to get out of her chair. Lenard refused. Gallegos again told Lenard to get out of the chair. Lenard said that it wasn't Gallegos' chair and that she wasn't moving. Gallegos then grabbed the chair and yanked it out from under Lenard. Lenard kept her balance and did not fall. Gallegos thet said to Lenard, "For two cents, I'd knock you right on your ass." Voorheis was present and observed the incident. After a pause, Voorheis said that they shouldn't argue over a chair and asked why they didn't go upstairs and get another chair. When no one else moved to get one, Voorheis went and got another chair. At the end of the break period Knoll and Wildfong walked by. Lenard told them what had just happened, and McDonald told them what Gallegos had said about calling their wives. Knoll said he had heard something about those statements and that he was fed up with Gallegos. McDonald said that she had about had it and wasn't going to take much more of it. However all four returned to work. A few minutes later Voorheis walked by where McDo- nald was working. McDonald told him she thought it was pretty "chicken shit" of him to have failed to stop Gallegos or do anything when Gallegos threatened Lenard. Before Voorheis could answer, Gallegos called out, "You old hag. If you've got something to say, say it to me and not to Paul." McDonald answered that she wasn't talking to her. Voorheis said nothing and walked away. McDonald then decided to leave, figuring that if she stayed it would end in a fight. McDonald got her coat, went toward the timeclock to leave, and again encountered Voorheis. She told Voorheis that she was not going to work under "these conditions of being called names and having these girls work against me all the time, and threatening other employees." She told Voorheis she had talked previously to him and Brown about some of these problems and that nothing seemed to be done about it. She told Voorheis that she wasn't going to stay there that night, and he told her that if she wanted leave she should go. McDonald then told Voorheis that she wouldn't be going alone and that Lenard, Knoll, and Wtldfong would also go because they had also had their fill of Gallegos and the working conditions there. McDonald then went to the timeclock she was Joined by Knoll, Wildfong, Lenard, and another employee Rick Wilbert, as well as Voorheis. A loud discussion ensued. Voorheis asked them what they were trying to do and said they couldn't walk off the job like that. Lenard said she was tired of what she had been taking from Gallegos. meeting until 2 days later on Saturday There is no evidence that such a meeting was otherwise mentioned by anyone until Saturday , or that any plans to hold such a meeting had been made LESLIE METAL ARTS CO', INC. 325 Knoll said that something had to be done about Gallegos' conduct.4 McDonald, Lenard, Knoll, and Wildfong then left the plant.5 3. The aftermath of the walkout After McDonald reached her home, she telephoned Plant Manager Debski and told him that the four employees had walked out because of Gallegos' behavior and the working conditions. Debski said they couldn't leave their jobs like that. McDonald said that she had talked to management 2 days earlier but that nothing had changed. Debski told her that they had to return to work that night or strict disciplinary action would be taken on the following Monday. McDonald said that under the circumstances they would not work any more that night. Later that night Debski telephoned McDonald and asked her to come to the plant with Lenard on the next morning, Saturday, to talk the matter over with him and Brown. At the meeting the next morning, Brown asked McDo- nald why the four employees had left their jobs. McDonald told Brown and Debski about the chair incident the night before, Gallegos' threat to Lenard, Gallegos' calling her names, and Gallegos' threats to call the wives of Knoll and Wildfong. Brown then said that he knew conditions were not the best in the department and that there were hostile feelings. He asked McDonald if she had any suggestions as to what could be done to change the attitude of the girls in the department. McDonald made no suggestions. Brown suggested one change in work procedure and asked her opinion of it. McDonald at first said she thought it might work, but then disagreed. After talking to McDonald, Brown and Debski asked Lenard why she had walked off the job. Lenard gave essentially the same reasons as McDonald, mentioning also that Gallegos called her names while at work.6 Brown and Debski said that it was ridiculous to have a walkout over these things and that they would have a departmental meeting to try to solve the problem. They told McDonald and Lenard that they were suspended pending further investigation and that they should call the plant on Monday for further information about their status. On that day Brown and Debski met separately with Gallegos and Johnson, and Gallegos was given a 3-day suspension because of the chair incident. On March 14 or 15 Brown told McDonald that she had been discharged for instigating a departmental walkout and leaving herjob without permission.? On March 13, Brown informed Lenard that she was 4 Knoll testified that apart from the chair incident , he was dissatisfied because of Gallegos' threats to call his wife and Wildfong 's, because it was too hot where he worked, and because the 'platers often worked shorthanded However, he mentioned none of the other reasons to Voorhees at the time he left S Although Wilbert initially indicated that he would also join them, he did not 6 McDoflald and Lenard so testified as to what they said were the reasons for the walkout. Brown testified that they only mentioned the chair incident as a reason , but that other problems in the department were also discussed in the meeting I have credited McDonald and Lenard that they voiced all their complaints when asked why they walked out suspended for 3 days for her second offense in leaving the plant without permission. At the end of the 3-day period Lenard returned to work. Wildfong and Knoll were each given 1 -day suspensions. Wildfong returned to work on Tuesday, March 13, but Knoll did not. Knoll talked to Brown and Debski that afternoon before the start of the second shift and learned of the discipline against him. He asked what was being done with respect to McDonald and Lenard, but Brown and Debski only told him that they were still under suspension. Knoll said that he did not want to return to work under those conditions and that he could not return to work and maintain a happily married life.8 On Thursday, March 15, Brown called him, asked him if he would come back to work that night, and told him that if he didn't return that night, he would be considered as having voluntarily quit because of unexcused absences. Knoll told Brown that he thought he would be there, but when he learned later that afternoon that McDonald had been discharged, he did not report for work. The next day, Knoll went to the plant to pick up his check and spoke with Brown. Brown said that he was sorry to see Knoll go, and Knoll replied that he was sorry to go but that he could not return to work in view of McDonald's termination because of his personal family life. Knoll told Brown that he had applied for a prospective job in tool-and-die work which looked promising. Brown offered to give him a good reference. Knoll thanked him and left .9 B. Concluding Findings Section 7 of the Act protects "concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection." Here it is not disputed that the walkout was concerted activity and that the suspensions and discharge were caused by the employees' participation in it. The question is whether the concerted activity was for a purpose protected by Section 7. The General Counsel contends that the purpose of the walkout was to protest working conditions and was for mutual aid and protection on the job. Respondent contends that the walkout was not in protest of working conditions but was the result of personal animosity between employees which was beyond the control of Respondent. The cause of the walkout was articulated differently by its various participants at different times, as is not unusual when an unorganized group of employees decides to act jointly in the absence of a designated bargaining represent- ative or spokesman.iO But whatever the background of animosity between Gallegos and Johnson on the one hand 7 Brown's testimony indicates that McDonald was disciplined more severely than the other employees because she was deemed the instigator of the walkout and because of her past record 8 These findings are based on a composite of the testimony of Knoll and Brown 9 These findings are based on a composite of the testimony of Knoll and Brown Although Knoll testified that he could not recall whether he made reference to the feeling within his family, he did not deny that it was mentioned, and Brown so testified 10 See. e g, N L R B v Washington Aluminum Company, Inc, 370 U S 9. 14-15 (1962), Polytech, Incorporated, 195 NLRB 695 326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and the employees who walked out on the other, the circumstances and the testimony make it clear that the chair incident and its immediate aftermath were the precipitating cause of the walkout and that the purpose of the walkout was to protest that incident and Voorheis' handling of it. Thus, immediately after the incident the four employees who later walked out gathered and discussed it. McDonald then indicated that she had about "had it," and Knoll said that he was "fed up." Although they then returned to work, only shortly thereafter they walked out after McDonald reproached Voorheis, Gallegos intervened, and Voorheis walked away without answering. This incident was not unrelated to the chair incident, as Respondent contends, but was its direct sequel, and the provocation which led McDonald to decide to leave was not merely that Gallegos had called her an old hag, but that she had done so when McDonald complained to Voorheis over his failure to take action at the time of the chair incident, and that Voorheis again took no action. While McDonald testified that she decided to leave to avoid a fight, one can hardly separate that reason from her criticism of Voorheis' failure to intervene, which left Gallegos' hostile actions and statements unchecked. With respect to the other three employees who walked out, even though they initially returned to work after the chair incident and might well have remained there if McDonald had not decided to leave, it does not follow from the fact that they did not leave immediately and waited for McDonald's leadership that the chair incident was not the cause of their leaving. To the contrary, there is no reason to believe that they would have left but for the chair incident, which at least two of them mentioned to Voorheis as they were leaving and all three later mentioned to management when questioned after the fact as to the cause of the walkout. Even absent McDonald's articulation of the complaint about Voorheis' failure to act, implicit in the action of all the employees who left was an appeal to management to do something about Gallegos' conduct during the break. ii The chair incident was not simply a dispute between two employees unrelated to their work. It took place during a break within the department. It entailed both a physical and a verbal threat to Lenard's safety. It was within Respondent's power to take action to maintain discipline within the plant, as Respondent clearly recognized in suspending Gallegos after the walkout occurred. The quality of supervision and the manner in which it is exercised are directly related to working conditions, and the banding together of employees to protest the way in which supervision is exercised and even management's choice of supervisors is protected concerted activity.i2 11 N L R B. v. Washington Aluminum Co, 370 U S 9, 14-15 (1962), System Analyzer Corp, 171 NLRB 45, 49-50 12 N L R B v. Guernsey-Muskingum Electric Cooperative, Inc, 285 F 2d 8 (C A. 6, 1960); Cubit Systems Corporation, 194 NLRB 622 13 Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc v NLRB, 358 F 2d 411, 413-414 (C.A 9, 1966) 14 N.LR B v. Washington Aluminum Co, supra I have considered Joanna Cotton Mills Co v. N LR.B., 176 F 2d 749 (C.A. 4); G & W Electric Specialty Company v N LR B, 360 F 2d 873 (C A 7, 1966), and AHI Machine Tool and Die, Inc v. N LR B, 432 F 2d 190 (C.A 6, 1970), on which Respondent relies , but find that each is distinguishable on its facts. I have also considered Respondent's contention that the walkout exposed Indeed, a protest against a supervisory response to a breach of plant discipline both literally and in spirit is concerted activity for mutual aid and protection of employees while at work. This is not to say that management was required to take any particular action sought by the employees or to change its supervisory practices in any respect. But it is to say that concerted activity for such a purpose is protected by Section 7 of the Act and cannot be the basis of disciplinary action against the protesting employees. The fact that Knoll and Wildfong were not themselves involved in the chair incident did not deprive them of protection of the Act when they joined McDonald and Lenard in walking out.i3 Likewise, the fact that the chair incident did not occur in isolation, but followed escalating hostility within the department did not deprive the walkout of protection. Insofar as the record shows, the hostility did not arise from incidents outside the plant unrelated to employment but from conduct within the plant relating to discipline, safety, and work load by which, whether rightly or wrongly, the employees felt aggrieved. In any event, whatever the ultimate effect of that hostility might have been absent the chair incident, the record shows that the chair incident and its aftermath were the direct cause of the walkout. Accordingly, I find that McDonald, Lenard, Knoll, and Wildfong were engaged in activity protected by Section 7 of the Act when they walked out and that the suspensions of all four and the discharge of McDonald violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.14 In addition, as I have found that the walkout on March 9 was protected concerted activity, it also follows, as alleged in the complaint, that when Debski told McDonald that night that the employees would have to return to work immediately or face strict disciplinary action on the following Monday, this warning violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. There remains for consideration the allegations of the complaint that Knoll became an unfair labor practice striker and that Brown violated the Act by telling Knoll that his employment would be considered terminated unless he returned to work. As set forth above, on Tuesday, March 13, when Knoll was told that he could return to work that night, Knoll was unable to learn what discipline was to be imposed on McDonald and Lenard. Knoll refused to return to work and said that he did not want to return to work under those conditions and that he could not return to work and still maintain a happily married life. Two days later Brown telephoned Knoll and told him that if he did not return to work that night he would be considered as having quit because of unexcused absences. Respondent to significant loss because of its abrupt occurrence while work was in process While Brown's testimony suggests that Voorheis may have been required to expend extra effort to avoid scrap when Knoll and Wildfong left their plater's jobs, there is no evidence that materials or equipment was damaged as a result of the walkout, that the employees should have taken reasonable precautions to protecuthe Respondent 's plant from such imminent damage as forseeably would result from their work stoppage, or that they deliberately timed their walkout so as to create a risk of substantial property damage Cf Marshall Car Wheel and Foundry Co of Marshall, Texas, Inc; 105 NLRB 57. 107 NLRB 314, enforcement denied 218 F.2d 409 (C A. 5). LESLIE METAL ARTS CO., INC. 327 Although Knoll indicated that he would return, after learning that McDonald had been terminated he did not report for work that night. On the next day, Knoll picked up his check and spoke again with Brown, again indicating that he could not return to work because of his personal family life. Neither counsel for the General Counsel in oral argument nor Respondent in its bnef has dealt with the issues raised by these facts. Although the facts above indicate that Knoll's motive in refusing to return to work stemmed at least in part from family considerations, the motive for Knoll' s refusal is irrelevant.15 At the time of his conversation with Brown and Debski on Tuesday, it is clear that Knoll was only refusing to return to work until McDonald and Lenard were reinstated and was not refusing to return under any circumstances. 16 By this refusal, Knoll made common cause with McDonald and Lenard, both of whom remained employees of Respondent within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly, I find that by refusing to return to work on March 13, Knoll became an unfair labor striker. As Knoll's withholding of his services on Tuesday and Wednesday was protected, Brown's statement to him on Thursday that he would be considered a voluntary quit if he did not return to work on Thursday threatened Knoll with discipline if he did not refrain from this protected activity and violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I find further that Knoll's status was not changed after his visit to the plant on Friday. Although Knoll's statements to Brown at that time indicate that he may have then viewed his departure as final, Brown had previously told him he was to be considered as a voluntary quit if he did not work the previous night. While one cannot assume that Knoll would ever have returned to work without the reinstatement of McDonald, in the light of Brown's warning the day before, Knoll's statements to Brown on Friday cannot be construed an unequivocal abandonment of his rights as an unfair labor practice striker.17 Accord- ingly, I find that from March 13 on, Knoll was an unfair labor practice striker and is entitled to reinstatement upon his unconditional application. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III above, occurring in connection with the operations described in section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several states and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist 15 Wheeling Electric Company, 182 NLRB 2I8, 220, enforcement denied 444 F 2d 783 (C A 4, 1971) Cf NLRB v Union Carbide Corporation, 440 F 2d 54 (C A. 4, 1971), cert denied 404 U S 826 (1971) Here, unlike the situation in Carbide where an employee refused to cross a picket solely by reason of physical fear, Knoll's family relationship to McDonald gave him added cause to support her legitimate claim to reinstatement as well as to therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. As I have found that Respondent suspended and thereafter discharged Betty McDonald in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to offer her immediate and full reinstatement to her former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to her seniority or other rights or privileges, and make her whole for any loss of earnings she may have suffered by payment to her of the amount she normally would have earned as wages from March 12, 1973, to the date of an offer of reinstatement, less net earnings, to which shall be added interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum in accordance with the formula set forth in F.W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289; and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. As I have found that Respondent suspended Adrian Knoll and Michael Wildfong from work for the day of March 12, 1973, and suspended Alice Lenard from work from March 12 through 14, 1973, 1 shall further recom- mend that their suspensions be rescinded and that they be made whole for any losses they may have suffered during the periods of their suspensions, with interest. As I have found that Adrian Knoll became an unfair labor practice striker on March 13, 1973, I shall further recommend that Respondent, shall, upon application, offer him reinstatement to his former position or, if that position no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights or privileges, dismissing, if necessary, any person hired to replace him, and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered or may suffer by reason of Respon- dent's refusal, if any, to reinstate him, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that he normally would have earned as wages during the period from 5 days after the date on which he applies for reinstatement to the date of Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings, with interest, to be computed in accordance with the same formula. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Leslie Metal Arts Company, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. By suspending Adrian Knoll, Alice Lenard, and Michael Wildfong, by suspending and then discharging Betty McDonald, and by threatening employees with discharge or other disciplinary action, all because they engaged in protected concerted activities or refused to stop engaging in protected concerted activities, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1) and 2(b) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, fear the consequences to his home life if he did not 16 Knoll so testified , and it is clear from Brown 's telephone call to Knoll on Thursday that Brown understood that Knoll had not unconditionally refused to return to work 17 See S & M Manufacturing Company, 165 NLRB 663. 328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER 18 Respondent, Leslie Metal Arts Company, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees by suspending, discharging, or in any other manner discriminating against employees for engaging in protected concerted activity. (b) Threatening employees with discharge or other disciplinary action for engaging in protected concerted activity or refusing to refrain therefrom. (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, as amended. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Betty McDonald and, upon application, offer Adrian Knoll immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights or privileges. (b) Rescind the suspensions of Adrian Knoll, Alice Lenard, Betty McDonald, and Michael Wildfong based on their March 9, 1973, walkout and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the unlawful action against them to the extent and in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amounts of backpay due under the terms of this recommended Order. (d) Post at its Grand Rapids, Michigan, place of business, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen- dix." 19 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after having been duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. ' (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 18 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 19 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 interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees by suspending, discharging, or in any other manner discriminating against them for engaging in protected concerted activities. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge or other disciplinary action for engaging in protected concerted. activities or refusing to refrain therefrom. WE WILL offer Betty McDonald and upon applica- tion WE WILL offer Adrian Knoll reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent jobs. WE WILL make Adrian Knoll, Alice Lenard, Betty McDonald, and Michael Wildfong whole for any losses of pay they may have suffered as a result of unlawful action against them, and WE WILL rescind their suspensions based, on their March 9, 1973, walkout. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. LESLIE METAL ARTS COMPANY, 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.