Glasgow Industries, Inc.

GLASGOW INDUSTRIES, INC. 121 Glasgow Industries, Inc., M. B. Manufacturing Co., P. Sorensen Mfg. Co., Inc. and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW. Case 9-CA-7959 because the interrogation occurred in the context of other unfair labor practices and because we construe Jeffries' quoted statement to be a promise of benefit in order to persuade Smith that the Union was unnecessary.' April 18, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On November 29, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Joseph I. Nachman issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, 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 Administrative Law Judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions with the following modification, and to adopt his recom- mended Order. The Administrative Law Judge found an independ- ent violation of Section 8(a)(1) based on the evidence that Respondent's supervisor, Frederick, upon ob- serving employee Word wearing a union button, remarked to her "Faye, I didn't think you'd do me this way." This conduct was not alleged as a violation in the complaint or amended complaint; neither the complaint nor the amended complaint included the usual catchall provision; Respondent was never subsequently made aware that Frederick's conduct was an issue in the case; and the issue was not fully litigated. Thus, there was only one reference to this incident in the record in Word's testimony, and Respondent did not cross-examine Word con- cerning this or introduce any evidence on the issue. Accordingly, the record does not warrant the finding of a violation. The Administrative Law Judge also found a similar violation with respect to Jeffries' conduct in interro- gating Smith. As set forth in the attached Decision, about the time Smith began wearing a union button in the plant, Supervisor Jeffries questioned him concerning his views about the Union. Smith replied that he thought the Union would be a good idea and that it would mean more money and benefits, to which Jeffries responded, "Well, you'll get your raises at the end of every three months." While we agree with the Administrative Law Judge that the Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1), we disagree with his rationale. Rather, we so find 210 NLRB No. 22 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, Glasgow Industries, Inc., M. B. Manufacturing Co., P. Sorensen Mfg. Co., Inc., operating at Glasgow, Kentucky, as a single integrated employer, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, except that the attached notice is substituted for the Administrative Law Judge's notice. 1 Member Jenkins would affirm the Administrative Law Judge's finding that the interrogation of Smith was in itself a violation of Section 8(aXl), and agrees that Jeffries' statement is "a promise of benefits" and a further violation of Section 8(a)( I). APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a trial in which all parties had the opportunity to present their evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we, Glasgow Industries, Inc., M. B. Manufacturing Co., and P. Sorenson Mfg. Co., Inc., violated the National Labor Relations Act, and has ordered us to post this notice. We intend to carry out the Order of the Board, the Judgment of any court enforcing the same, and abide by the following: The National Labor Relations Act gives all employees these rights: To organize themselves To form, join or help Unions To act together for collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection To refuse to do any or all these things. WE WILL NOT do anything to interfere with you in the exercise of the aforementioned rights, and all our employees are free to assist, support, or become a member of International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Imple- ment Workers of America, UAW, or not to assist, support, or become or remain a member of that or any other union. WE WILL NOT tell employees that we are 122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD disappointed in them because they assist or support a union. WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate employees concerning their assistance to or support of the aforesaid or any other union of our employees. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with closing or moving our plant because they assist or support a union. WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discrimi- nate against any employee because he or she assisted or supported any union. As the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the law when we discharged Tommy Smith, WE WILL offer him immediate, full and unconditional reinstatement to his old job, or if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equal job, without any loss in seniority or other rights and privileges, and make up to him the pay he lost, with 6-percent interest. GLASGOW INDUSTRIES, INC., M. B. MANUFACTURING CO., P. SORENSON MFG. CO., INC. (Employers) 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 concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Federal Office Building, Room 2407, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, Telephone 513-684-3621. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JOSEPH I. NACHMAN, Administrative Law Judge: This proceeding heard by me at Glasgow, Kentucky, on October 30,' with all parties present and duly represented, involves a complaint 2 pursuant to Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein the Act), which, as amended at the trial, alleged, in substance, that Glasgow Industries, Inc., M. B. Manufacturing Co., and P. Sorenson Mfg. Co., Inc., as a single integrated employer (herein Respondent or Company), in the course I This and all dates hereafter mentioned are in 1973. 2 Issued October 1, on a charge filed August 13, and served October 14. 7 I direct that the transcript of evidence be corrected by changing the spelling of my name wherever it appears from Knachman to Nachman. 4 No issue of commerce or labor organization is involved. The complaint of an organizational campaign by International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Imple- ment Workers of America, UAW (herein the Union), interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights protected by Section 7 of the Act, thereby violating Section 8(axl) of the Act, and on August 7, discriminatorily discharged Tommy Smith in violation of Section 8(aX3) and ( 1) of the Act. By answer Respondent admitted certain allegations of the complaint, but denied the commission of any unfair labor practice. For reasons hereafter more fully detailed, I find the allegations of the complaint sustained by the evidence and recommend an appropriate remedial order. At the hearing all parties were afforded full opportunity to introduce relevant and material evidence , to examine and cross-examine witnesses , to argue orally on the record, and to submit briefs. Oral argument was waived. No party has filed a brief within the time limit fixed by me at the trial. Upon the pleadings, stipulations of counsel, evidence including my observation of the witnesses while testifying, and the entire record3 in the case, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACTO A. Background As the Board found in the prior case of which I take official notice, Glasgow Industries, Inc., M. B. Manufac- turing Co., and P. Sorenson Mfg. Co., Inc., wholly owned subsidiaries of Gulf and Western Systems Company, operate a single integrated enterprise which is engaged at Glasgow, Kentucky, in the manufacture and sale of electrical connectors and automotive parts . There, the Board found that Respondent : by threatening employees with layoff and plant removal because of their activity on behalf of the Union; by requesting employees to promise to discontinue their lawful organizational activities; and by soliciting and impliedly promising to remedy employee complaints for the purpose of interfering with their Section 7 rights, violated Section 8(axl) of the Act. Additionally, the Board found that an election conducted by the Board at Respondent's plant on September 11, 1972, should be set aside, and that a new election be conducted by the Regional Director at such time as he found appropriate. Pursuant to said order , a new election was conducted on July 27. In that election a substantial majority of the employees voted for the Union . Objections to conduct affecting the results of the election, filed by Respondent, are pending before the Regional Director and were unresolved at the time of the trial herein.5 Certain conduct allegedly engaged in by Respondent shortly prior to the second election is relied on by the General Counsel in support of the 8(a)(1) allegations involved in this case. alleges and the answer admits facts which establish those elements Moreover, the Board in a pnor case, recently exercised jurisdiction over Respondent. See Glasgow Industries, Inc., M. B. Manufacturing Co, P. Sorenson Mfg. Co, Inc., 204 NLRB No. 107, issued June 28. 5 The representation case was not consolidated with the instant case. GLASGOW INDUSTRIES, INC. 123 B. The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices 1. Interference, restraint, and coercion a. Employee Faye Word, a union supporter, began wearing a union button in the plant about July 1. Shortly thereafter Company Representative Frederick came through the plant, and observing the union button Word was then wearing remarked, "Faye, I didn't think you would dome this way."6 b. On or about July 25, Company Supervisor Cornelius engaged a group of employees, which included Faye Word, Joyce Byrd, and an employee whom Word could identify only as Betty, in a conversation about the Union, which lasted about 45 minutes. Cornelius, recounting the disad- vantages of the Union, told the employees that they now had seniority, insurance for which the Company paid in part, and periodic raises, but would not have these benefits if the Union came in; that if the Union came in the plant might move ; and that the Union had tried to organize 16 Gulf and Western plants, that 15 had moved because of the Union, and that he left it to the employees to figure out which the 16th plant was.7 c. On or about July 26, Cornelius had another conversation with Faye Word concerning the Union. On this occasion Cornelius came to her worktable and told Word that he had just come from Company Representative Frederick's office, and that the latter had sent him to tell her how disappointed he was in Tommy Smiths for pushing the Union so hard after she had pleaded with Frederick to give him a job.9 d. On or about July 11, about the time employee Tommy Smith began wearing a union button in the plant, Jeffries, an admitted supervisor, asked Smith what the latter thought about the Union. Smith replied that he thought the Union would be a good idea; that it would give him more money and better benefits. Jeffries then said Smith would get his increases, because Management Representatives Frederick and Sudermann had been talking about how good a workman Smith had proved himself to be.io 2. The discharge of Tommy Smith Smith began working for Respondent on June 25 as a setup man.ii When he came to work the union campaign was in progress, and Smith soon became active in its support, wearing a button in the plant beginning about July 11 and acting as observer for the Union at the election 9 Based on the uncontradicted and credited testimony of Faye Word. Frederick did not testify. 7 Based on a composite of the credited testimony of Faye Word and Joyce Byrd. Cornelius admitted that at the inception of the union campaign all supervisors were given a list of what they could and could not do with reference to that campaign, that during the week poor to the July 27 election he went through the plant and talked with all employees under his supervision, some 45 to 50 in number, and told them all substantially the same thing; and although he denied that he made exactly the statements Word and Byrd attributed to him, he admitted that he told the employees if the Union was successful all benefits would be subject to negotiations, and if during the negotiations there was a prolonged strike and the Company lost business, there was a possibility the plant would shut down and move away Cornelius also admitted that when he spoke to the employees as aforesaid, he intended to create in their minds the impression that a union in the plant would inherently mean strikes Word and Byrd also testified on July 27. Supervisor Norrod admits that he learned of Smith's support for the Union approximately a week after Smith came to work. At least for the first few weeks, Smith's performance appears to have been satisfactory to Respondent. As above found, when Jeffries spoke to Smith on July 11, he told the latter that Company Representa- tives Frederick and Sudermann had expressed themselves as pleased with his work. Additionally, the uncontradicted evidence shows that Frederick told Faye Word shortly after July 1, that Smith was a good worker and hoped he would stay on the job, and at some time in July, before the election, told employee Gladys Reece that Smith had "turned out to be a 1-A worker for us." Respondent does not seriously question that at least initially Smith was a satisfactory employee. Rather, it contends that beginning some 2 to 3 weeks following his initial employment, Smith not only engaged in conduct constituting derelictions of duty, but generally displayed an attitude which convinced Respondent that Smith had no real interest in the job. Jerry Jeffries, assistant foreman on the second shift, which was the shift Smith worked, and who reported to General Foreman Cecil Norrod, testified that starting about July 10 he began getting reports from the third shift setup man that Smith was leaving machinery unrepaired so that it had to be repaired on the third shift, and from female machine operators that Smith was refusing to put work up on their tables, as it was his duty to do, claiming that he had to sweep the floor. According to Norrod, he found it necessary to speak to Smith about this and explain to the latter that keeping the operators supplied was a major responsibility of his, and that floor sweeping could be performed when he had nothing better to do. Jeffries' testimony in this regard is uncorroborated. On or about July 23, General Foreman Norrod assigned Smith to a machine in the assembly room, and instructed Smith not to leave that area unless he or Assistant Foreman Jeffries called him out. During the evening of July 26, employee Thorns reported to Foreman Norrod that there was some difficulty with the "Post" machine; that he had asked Smith to fix it; and that the latter had refused, saying that he had instructions not to leave his area. Norrod testified that he then told Smith to fix the machine as requested, and for the balance of the shift if Thoms asked him to fix a machine he was to do so, because Jeffries was on vacation and he (Norrod) had to cover two areas. When the shift changed that day at 11 p.m., Jackson, assistant foreman on the third shift, reported to Norrod that the "Post" machine was down again, that before the that Cornelius stated that if the Union came in the employees would lose their seniority, because the Union went by merit Although I regard both as honest witnesses, I conclude that they were mistaken in that regard and do not rely on their testimony in that respect. 8 Smith is Faye Word's brother, and whom she had urged Frederick to give a job Smith is the alleged discnminatee in this case, and the facts concerning his discharge are hereafter set forth 9 Based on the credited testimony of Word. Cornelius did not deny that he made the aforesaid statement, and Word's testimony in that regard is uncontradicted. 10 Based on the uncontradicted and credited testimony of Smith. Although Jeffries testified as a witness called by Respondent, he did not deny the statements attributed to him by Smith. ii Smith was interviewed pursuant to a request made by his sister, Faye Word, to Company Representative Frederick, and was thereafter hired. 124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD second shift ended Thorns had asked Smith to repair it, but Smith refused suggesting that they just let the machine run and leave it for the next shift to repair. Thorns refused to go along with Smith's suggestion, and directed that the machine be shut down. After verifying that information with Thorns, Norrod looked for Smith, but the latter had completed his shift and left the plant.12 On Friday, July 27, Smith was the Union's observer at the election, apparently between the hours of 4 and 7 p.m. Following the election, Smith asked General Foreman Norrod for permission to be off the rest of his shift, saying that he dust did not feel like working. Norrod granted Smith's request, but did tell Smith that while the plant would not be in production on Monday, July 30, and Tuesday, July 31, inventory would be taken on those days and he would be expected to work because the services of all male employees would be needed to move materials. Smith told Norrod that he would be at work as Norrod requested. It is important to note that in this conversation Norrod said nothing to Smith regarding the latter's alleged refusal to fix the machine the night of July 26, as Norrod testified was reported to him by Thorns. Smith did not again report for work until July 31. When Norrod asked why Smith had not reported on July 30, Smith stated that on Sunday, July 29, he had been riding around and came upon an accident which involved a car falling into some high water, and which resulted in a fatality; that he got into the water to help search for possible victims or survivors, got chilled, and on Monday was too sick to come to work. There is no evidence that Norrod voiced any objection to this explanation, and the evidence is clear that on July 31 nothing was said to Smith about his alleged refusal to repair the machine on July 26. On August 1, General Foreman Norrod gave Smith a formal reprimand, which Smith signed. The reprimand has a check mark in the blocks entitled "Substandard Work" and "attitude," and under the heading "Company re- marks," reads, "Lack of Interest-General attitude toward job." 13 After the aforementioned reprimand, Smith worked without incident until August 6. On that evening Sudermann, manager of manufacture in the ignition department, Assistant Foreman Jeffries, and General Foreman Norrod observed Smith talking with a female employee. The uncontradicted testimony is that Suder- mann timed Smith in this activity for 16 minutes and then directed Jeffries to get Smith to work and to reprimand him for not workmg.14 Neither Jeffnes nor Smith gave any testimony as to what Jeffnes told Smith when he first approached the latter at Sudermann's direction. According to Jeffries, at about 10:30 to 10:45 p.m., just before the end of the shift, he called Smith to his desk and gave him another written reprimand which has a check mark by the 12 Smith's version of this incident is that he had been assigned to the assembly room by Norrod and told not to leave that area unless he (Norrod) or Jeffnes called him out; that on July 26, Norrod directed him to repair a machine, which he did, that sometime later the inspector came to hum and asked that the machine be fixed again, which he proceeded to do, but that Norrod discovered that fact and reprimanded him for leaving the assembly room without permission , and that shortly before I I p in. the inspector again asked him to repair the machine, and he told the inspector to take the matter up with Norrod Inspector Thorns did not testify, and Norrod's testimony in that regard, although not objected to, is hearsay so far as it relates to the truth of the statement. headings "substandard work," "conduct" and "attitude." Under the heading "Company Remarks," the reprimand reads: Failure to apply available time on performing assigned duties. Example, on this date you were observed not doing anything for 16 minutes while there was work to be done. According to Norrod, a copy of this reprimand was left on his desk, and he in turn sent it to Sudermann with a note saying that if Smith could not be corrected, he should be terminated. The following day Sudermann called Smith, Norrod, and Jeffries to his office and there discharged Smith. According to Smith,15 Sudermann reviewed the two reprimands and stated that the Company did not want anyone in the plant who did not do their job. C. Contentions and Conclusions 1. The 8(axl) allegations I find and conclude that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the following conduct: a. Frederick's statement to employee Word, when he observed her first wearing a union button, that he didn't think she "would do [him] that way." This was plainly an attempt to interfere with Word in the exercise of her Section 7 ights, and an attempt to dissuade her from the further exercise of such rights. b. The statement by Supervisor Cornelius to all employees under his supervision, that if the Union came in the plant might move ; that 15 of 16 other plants of the Company did move when a union came in; and that the employees could use their imagination as to which the 16th would be. In context the statement was not a prophecy of what might happen, but a calculated and premeditated attempt to coerce the employees into believing-although the precise words were not used-that the advent of the Union would inevitably mean the moving of the plant from Glasgow. N.LR.B. v. Gissel Packing Co., Inc., 395 U.S. 575, 589, 618-620(1969); Cleveland Woolens a Division of Burlington Industries, Inc., 140 NLRB 87, 88, 94. c. The statement by Cornelius to employee Word, that he had been sent by Frederick to tell her how disappointed he was in Smith for pushing the Union so hard. This was plainly employer interference with the right of the employees to exercise their Section 7 rights, and hence violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. d. The interrogation of Smith by Jeffries concerning Smith's views about the Union. No justification for such interrogation was established, nor was assurance given by Jeffries that Respondent would take no reprisal against 13 Norrod testified that on this occasion he talked with Smith about his failure to report for work on July 30, and that Smith gave him no reason for such failure He did not deny that Smith gave him the explanation on August 31, and there is no mention of the matter in the official reprimand. To the extent that there is a conflict between the testimony of Norrod and Smith, I credit the latter. 14 Smith admitted that he talked with the female employee on the occasion in question , but did not know how long the conversation lasted. 1s Sudermann did not testify. Although Norrod and Jeffries both were present in Sudermann's office , neither gave any testimony as to what Sudermann said on this occasion. GLASGOW INDUSTRIES, INC. employees if they continued their support of the Union. Accordingly, the interrogation of Smith constituted the interference, restraint, and coercion proscribed by Section 8(axl) of the Act. 2. The 8(a)(3) and (1) allegations Upon consideration of the entire record, I find and conclude that Smith was discharged because of his assistance to and support of the Union. I do so on the totality of the following factors: a. Respondent's union animus is made plain not only by its conduct in the prior case above referred to, but from its 8(a)(1) conduct herein found. b. Respondent regarded Smith's work performance as satisfactory until after he began wearing a union button in the plant on or about July 11, and his interrogation by Jeffries as herein above found. c. The alleged derelictions of duty by Smith do not appear to have been regarded very seriously by Respon- dent. Even taking Norrod's version of the facts, that he told Smith to repair any machine when requested to do so by Inspector Thorns, and that he was unable to reprimand Smith on the evening of July 26 because Smith had concluded his shift and left the plant, Norrod admits that he spoke with Smith the evening of July 27, and again the evening of July 31, and makes no claim that he took Smith to task for this alleged improper conduct on those occasions. Although Smith worked on July 31, nothing was said to him that day concerning his failure to report for work on July 30. And while Norrod testified that on August 1 he reprimanded Smith for not reporting on July 30, neither that subject nor Smith's alleged refusal to repair machinery on July 26 is mentioned in his written reprimand of that date. Regarding Smith's talking to the female employee on August 6, the evidence is, of course, uncontradicted that he did so for some period of time. However, there is no showing that Respondent maintained any rule prohibiting employees from talking while at work, or that Smith's talking interfered with his own work or that of the female employee involved. Also, the evidence leaves no room for doubt that Smith's conversation on this occasion was not onesided, and whatever offense Smith committed, the female employee was guilty of the same offense, and yet there is no evidence that any action was taken against her. Additionally, the evidence shows, as Jeffries conceded, that other employees talk freely in the plant some for extended periods of time, and there is no evidence that any other employee was ever disciplined, much less discharged, for such conduct. On this state of facts it may be appropriately inferred, as I do, that Respondent's dissatisfaction with Smith's work perform- ance was rooted primarily in the fact that he persisted in his assistance to and support of the Union. d. In sum, what all this adds up to is that a previously satisfactory employee becomes unsatisfactory immediately after he is interrogated concerning his union and concerted activity, and continues his support of the Union, and is immediately warned and then discharged in the midst of a workweek. These factors are the classic indicia of a discriminatorily motivated discharge. And when there is added to this the fact that Respondent's reasons for 125 discharging Smith do not stand up under scrutiny, as I have found, it is appropriate to infer, as I do, that the discharge of Smith was motivated by antiunion considera- tions. As the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated the principles in Shattuck Denn Mining Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 362 F.2d 466,470(1966): If he [the trier of fact] finds that the stated motive for a discharge is false, he certainly can infer that there is another motive. More than that, he can infer that the motive is one that the employer desires to conceal-an unlawful motive-at least where, as in this case, the surrounding facts tend to reinforce that inference. Accordingly, I find and conclude that Smith was discharged because of his assistance to and support of the Union, and hence his discharge violated Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By the conduct set forth in Section I, C, 1, hereof, Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. By discharging Tommy Smith on August 7, 1973, because of his union and concerted activity, Respondent discriminated against him in regard to his hire and tenure of employment, and the terms and conditions thereof, to discourage membership in the Union, and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the Act. 5. 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 Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act, it will be recommended that it be required to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, set forth below, designed and found necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent interfered with, re- strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights, and discriminatorily discharged Tommy Smith-violations which go to the very heart of the Act-I conclude from the totality of such conduct that Respon- dent should be required to cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532 (C.A. 4); California Lingerie, Inc., 129 NLRB 912, 915. Having found that Respondent discriminatorily dis- charged Tommy Smith, it will be recommended that Respondent be required to offer him immediate, full, and 126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD unconditional reinstatement to his or her former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his semority or other rights, privileges, or working conditions, and make him whole for any loss of earnings he suffered by reason of the discrimination against him, by paying to him a sum of money equal to the amount he would have earned from the date of his discharge to the date Respondent offers him reinstatement as aforesaid, less any amount he may have earned as wages during said period, to be computed in accordance with the formula prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing &r Heating Co., , 138 NLRB 716. Additionally, it will be recommended that Respondent be required to preserve and, upon request , make available to authorized agents of the Board , all records necessary or useful in determining compliance with the Board's Order her or in computing the amount of backpay due. ,pon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommend- ed: ORDER 16 Respondent, Glasgow Industries, Inc., M. B. Manufac- turing Co., P. Sorenson Mfg. Co., Inc., operating at Glasgow, Kentucky, as a single integrated employer, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Interrogating employees regarding their membership in, assistance to, or support of International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, or any other labor organiza- tion of its employees. (b) Threatening employees with plant closure if they elect to be represented by the aforementioned or any other labor organization. (c) Telling any employee that it was disappointed in him or her because he or she assisted a labor organization. (d) Discourgaging membership in or activities on behalf of the aforementioned or any other labor organization of 16 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 its employees, by discharging or otherwise discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment of any of its employees. (e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self- organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain from any and all such activiites. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to and found necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Tommy Smith immediate, full, and uncondi- tional reinstatement to his former job or, if such job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent one, without prejudice to his semority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for the wages he lost in the manner set forth in the section hereof entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its authorized agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary or useful in determining compli- ance with this Order, or computing the amount of backpay due as herein provided. (c) Post at its plants in Glasgow, Kentucky, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 17 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 9 of the National Labor Relations Board (Cincin- nati, Ohio), shall, after being signed by an authorized representative, be posted as herein provided immediately upon receipt thereof, and be so maintained for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the aforesaid Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith. 17 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."