Kanawha Manufacturing Co.

KANAWHA MANUFACTURING COMPANY Kanawha Manufacturing Company and United Steel- workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case 9-CA-8050 June 26, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY On March 29, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Fannie M. Boyls issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclu- sions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt her recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge, and hereby orders that Respondent, Kanawha Manufacturing Company, Charleston, West Virginia, its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE FANNIE M. BOYLS, Administrative Law Judge: This case, initiated by a charge filed on September 28, 1973, and a complaint issued on November 27, 1973, was tried before me in Charleston, West Virginia, on January 24, 1974. The complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleges that Respon- dent, during a union organizational campaign in September 1973, violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, by discriminatorily discharging employee Gerald R. Turner because of his union membership and activities and by engaging in various other acts of interfer- ence, restraint, and coercion of employees in the exercise of their organizational rights. Respondent's answer denies that it engaged in any of the unfair labor practices alleged. Sub- sequent to the hearing the General Counsel and counsel for the Respondent filed briefs. Upon the entire record in this case, upon my observation of the demeanor of of the witnesses, and after a careful consideration of the briefs, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS 51 Respondent is a West Virginia corporation, engaged in the manufacture of structural steel products at Charleston, West Virginia. During the 12-month period preceding the issuance of the complaint, which is a representative period, Respondent sold and shipped goods and merchandise val- ued in excess of $50,000 from its Charleston, West Virginia, plant directly to customers outside West Virginia. On the basis of these admitted facts, I find that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. I II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Chronology of Events About September 17 or 18, 1973, Gerald R. Turner, one of Respondent's machinists, obtained union authorization cards from another employee (whose identity is not dis- closed in the record) and started actively soliciting fellow employees to join the Union. He did this openly during his lunch and coffee breaks and before and after work, person- ally talking to and soliciting signatures on cards from 50 to 55 employees, some on the night shift and some on the day shift. Three other employees, Fugate, Rutlidge, and Nicho- las, were also active in soliciting employees to sign cards and they turned over to Turner the signed cards they received. Many of the solicitations were in the general area where the supervisors ate their lunches. Around September 20, some of the signed cards were delivered by Rutlidge to Turner in a small room adjoining the machine shop, with Machine Shop Foreman Jones about 10 or 15 feet away looking in their direction. On the following Monday morning, September 24, before Rutlidge had turned his machine on and started working, Floor Foreman Jack Vance came to him and said, "I've got a message for you from Don Lane [the plant manager]. He told me to tell you to stay in your work area. Don't leave your machine and stay off the mule [the forklift truck].. . I don't want to catch you bullshitting with anybody." Rut- lidge asked the reason for these instructions and Vance replied that he did not know the reason, explaining that he was just transmitting the message from Plant Manager Lane, and adding, "Now, if you're caught doing any of these, you will be fired." Later the same day, Rutlidge stopped Lane as he was passing the area where Rutlidge was working and asked Lane, "Don, what have I done to make you mad?" Lane, after ascertaining that Foreman Vance had delivered his message, reiterated the same instructions but did not ex- plain the reason for them. Rutlidge had never previously been warned about leaving his machine or work area or 212 NLRB No. 7 52 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD about using the forklift or about talking to his fellow em- ployees. Indeed, it was a part of his duties as a drill press operator frequently to leave the structural shop , where he regularly worked , to go to the machine shop for drill bits or other supplies and to use the forklift , as did the other opera- tors, to pick up or deliver work all over the plant or to move the forklift if it was obstructing something ) Rutlidge testi- fied that he used the forklift and went to work areas other than his own only in connection with performing his regular duties and there is no evidence to the contrary . Moreover, as he explained , the machines on which he and other opera- tors work are close together and he and others normally talk freely to each other while working, without interfering with production.2 Also on September 24, employee Fugate (who had previ- ously signed a union card on September 21 and had turned over to Turner the signed card he had received from others) was approached by Plant Manager Lane and asked, "Big- gun, I've got him down pat, haven 't I? Did he sign you up?" Fugate replied that he did not know what Lane was talking about. Thereupon Lane asked, "Did you sign a card?" Fu- gate replied , "You're damn right I signed a card." It is apparent from Lane's conduct that he wished to leave the impression that he knew who was responsible for promoting the union movement and at the same time to ascertain whether Fugate had signed a union card . Lane's interroga- tion of Fugate, under the circumstances , was clearly of a coercive nature. On the following day, September 25, Gerald Turner was discharged by Plant Manager Lane for the asserted reason that Turner was violating a plant rule by failing to wear his safety glasses. The circumstances of this discharge and the additional reasons later assigned to Turner for his discharge will be considered below. Later that day and after learning of Gerald Turner's dis- charge, employee Rutlidge-upon whom unexplained re- strictions on his movement and talking had already been placed-met Foreman Vance at the water cooler . Rutlidge remarked, "The Company really hung one on Jerry, didn't they?" When Vance nodded , Rutlidge continued, "Now, you know that wasn't over the hardhat and glasses. It was over the Union ." Again Vance nodded , appearing to agree, and told Rutlidge , "Now, if you're not careful and watch what you are doing and do as Don Lane told you , you will be fired too." Vance testified that his remarks to Rutlidge at the water fountain were "off the record" and "as a friend," to warn him to be careful and stay in his work area so that Vance would not have to fire him. Vance appeared very uneasy on the witness stand and I do not believe that he was entirely frank . While at first testifying that he did not believe Turner's discharge was mentioned during the water fountain conversation , he later acknowledged that the sub- ject had been brought up but that Vance did not believe he told Rutlidge the real reason for Turner 's discharge. He testified that at the time no one had told him the reason and 1 At the time of the hearing Respondent had a regular forklift driver, but it did not have one at the time Rutledge received his admonition 2 The findings in the above two paragraphs are based on the undenied and credited testimony of Rutlidge Plant Manager Lane did not even testify nor did Machine Shop Foreman Jones he did not in fact know the real reason . It does not appear that the two versions of this conversation are necessarily inconsistent . I am satisfied that Vance, at least at that time, did not really know the true reason for Turner 's discharge but that, like Rutlidge , he suspected that Turner 's union activities may have been the motivating reason ; that he sincerely liked Rutledge and did not want Rutlidge to lose his job because of Rutlidge 's union activities ; and that he therefore did not disagree with Rutlidge's speculation as to the real reason for Turner's discharge and did , in fact, nod his head in apparent agreement with Rutlidge 's statements and warned Rutlidge to adhere strictly to the instructions Plant Manager Lane had relayed to him on the preceding day so that Lane would have no ostensible excuse for dis- charging Rutlidge. I find that Vance 's statements and con- duct constituted a veil threat to Rutlidge that because of his union activities he might suffer the same fate as Turner and be terminated upon some slight pretext. On September 26, the day after Turner's discharge, as one of the welders, Nicholas, returned from the restroom , Assis- tant General Foreman Sam Shelton, who was working with an employee on a machine adjoining Nicholas', told Nicho- las, "I want you to stay in your work area. I don't want to catch you out, unless its something pertaining to your job." Nicholas asked , "Well, is it all right, if I have to go to the restroom?" Shelton thereupon became angry, shook a finger in Nicholas' face , and said, "Don't get smart with me." Nicholas replied, "I'm not trying to get smart, Sam I need to know, in view of these new rules, that I can't get out of my working area, I've got to know if I can go to the rest- room." Shelton told him, "Now, get your ass back to your work" and warned him, "Now, if I catch you out again, I'm taking you upstairs and firing you ." Shelton also instructed him not to talk to other employees. According to Shelton his admonition to Nicholas was occasioned by the fact that during a period of about 23 minutes, while assisting the employee on the machine next to Nicholas', he noticed that Nicholas was not at his work station . Shelton did not, however, ask Nicholas where he had been or explain why the restriction on his moving about the plant or talking was placed upon him. Nicholas had never before been admonished to stay in his work area and the nature of his work , as Shelton acknowledged in warning Nicholas, was such that it became necessary at times for him to leave his work station in performing his normal duties. Nicholas credibly testified that, except for going to the rest- room or water fountain and performing necessary work for Respondent, he had not been leaving his work station. Nei- ther had he been aware of other employees drifting around or "goofing off." Nicholas acknowledged that about 2 years prior thereto when a very talkative employee had been working next to Nicholas, General Foreman Weisman would occasionally tell the two of them they were talking too much, but these casual admonitions were not accompa- nied by threats of disciplinary action ; nor did they consti- tute prohibitions against a reasonable amount of talking which would not tend to interfere with production . Accord- ing to Nicholas' uncontroverted testimony, three or four other active union supporters, in addition to himself, were restricted in their movements and their talking during the period dust before and after Turner's discharge , whereas KANAWHA MANUFACTURING COMPANY other employees were not similarly restricted. Later that day, when Nicholas was in the foreman's office getting an order for welding rods, Shelton came to him and invited him to another office for a talk. Nicholas asked him what he wanted to talk about, adding, "If its about union, I'll tell you now. I'm supporting it and I'm for it. If you want to fire me, you may as well fire me right now." Shelton assured him, "No, we're not going to fire any more men" or "We are not going to fire any more now." In the office Shelton told Nicholas that he had probably been too rough on Nicholas earlier that day and was not "really mad" at him but was `just hurt" and "disappointed" because he had found out that Nicholas was involved in the union activities, after "the Company had done so much for" Nicholas and "had been so good to" him. He told Nicholas that the Com- pany could do a lot more for the men if there was no "third party" involved, and that "if the Union was to get in there, that the Company would have to get tighter on the men, get more work out of them and there would be certain benefits that the men would lose," such as a Christmas party, a $50 Christmas Bonus and a Christmas turkey. Shelton also told Nicholas about a previous experience Shelton had while a union official, when he had had to watch his employer fire men, with the Union powerless to stop it. During this discussion, Fred (Hopper) Weisman, general foreman over the Construction Shop, came in and joined the conversation. He stated that during 1965 when Respon- dent was having labor trouble with another labor organiza- tion, the UAW, Respondent had considered closing the plant down and "had even looked into converting the plant into just a steel warehouse." Weisman added, "And I be- lieve the old son of a bitch [referring to Respondent's presi- dent] would be contrary enough to do it." It is manifest that the restrictions placed by Assistant General Foreman Shelton upon Nicholas' movements about the plant and upon his talking to fellow employees, constituted reprisals against Nicholas for having been an active supporter of the Union and were designed to discour- age him from engaging in further union activities. Shelton in effect conceded as much when he acknowledged later in the day that his "rough" treatment of Nicholas was occa- sioned by his being hurt and disappointed upon learning that Nicholas was involved in union activities. Shelton's statement to Nicholas that Respondent "would have to get tighter on the men and get more work out of them" and take away their Christmas bonuses and other benefits if the Union came in constituted further threats of reprisal against employees if they selected the Union as their bargaining representative. Moreover, his reference to an experience at a prior employer's plant where the union was powerless to stop the employer ,from firing employees appears to have been a veiled threat or warning that a union at Respondent's plant would be powerless to prevent Respondent from dis- charging the union adherents. General Foreman Weisman's remarks, during the same conversation, about Respondent having considered closing the plant and converting it into a steel warehouse during previous labor trouble with another union and Weisman's expression of belief that Respondent's president would be contrary enough to do it, were, I am convinced, a thinly veiled threat of plant closure in the event that the Union 53 presently attempting to organize Respondent's employees was successful. I find, as alleged in the complaint, that Respondent vio- lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the coercive statements and conduct of Management Representatives Vance, Lane, Shelton, and Weisman, as described above. B. Turner's Discharge At the time of his discharge on September 25, 1973, Turn- er had been employed by Respondent as a machinist for about 3-1/2 years and had advanced in his rate of pay from $2.50 to $4.20 an hour. Four or five of the increases received during this period were merit increases. Turner's prominence in the Union's organizational drive has already been described. His open solicitation of 50 or 55 employees in the plant before and after work and during luncheon and other breaks, in areas where supervisors ate their lunch, and his acceptance of signed cards from other solicitors, could hardly have escaped the notice of manage- ment. There is specific evidence that one supervisor, Turner's own foreman, was looking in the direction of em- ployee Rutlidge when the latter handed Turner some signed union cards on September 20, while all three men were in a small office together. It is clear that at least by Monday, September 24, management representatives knew of the or- ganizational drive in progress and were trying to pinpoint the leaders, for on that date Plant Manager Lane indicated to Employee Fugate that he knew the identity of the person who was organizing the plant and asked Fugate whether that person had signed him up in the Union. I am satisfied from all the evidence that Lane, prior to September 25, knew or suspected that Turner was prominent in the union movement. Shortly before 8 a.m. on September 25, while showing a fellow employee how to use a measuring instrument, Turner removed his safety glasses, as he customarily did when read- ing an instrument or lining up small lines. On this occasion, Plant Manager Lane walked up to him and asked where his glasses were. Turner pointed to them at the end of his ma- chine, about 2 feet away. Thereupon, Lane told Turner, "You're fired, get your stuff together and get out. Your check will be ready in half an hour." Turner protested that he did not believe that his failure to have safety glasses on was sufficient reason for firing him, but Lane stated that he did not want to discuss the matter and walked off. On his way to the office, Turner stopped to talk to his immediate supervisor, Machine Shop Foreman Jones, who himself has the authority to hire and fire employees. Jones professed not to know anything about the discharge and said he "didn't have any idea what was going on." He stated that he was "sorry" that Turner was leaving. Turner asked if his work had been satisfactory and Jones replied that he was satisfied with Turner's work and that Turner "had done a good job for him." In the office Turner told General Manager Sidney Davis, Jr., who is also Respondent's president, about his discharge and again expressed the view that he did not believe what had happened was sufficient reason for his discharge. He told Davis that other employees were guilty of failure to wear their safety glasses or safety hats and were not fired, 54 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that one employee had been told a dozen times by his super- visor to put his safety hat on and that nothing had happen to him, and that Davis, himself, had appeared in the shop dozens of times without safety glasses or a safety hat on. Davis stated that he knew nothing about the discharge but would talk to Lane about it, suggesting that Turner wait in his car while Davis consulted Lane. About a half hour later, according to Turner, Davis recalled him and in the presence of Lane told Turner that the safety glasses incident was only the straw that broke the camel's back, that Turner "had been a flagrant violator of Company privileges," that he was taking too much time on his lunch and coffee breaks and that he "had been harassing other employees." Davis testi- fied that, after talking to both Lane and Foreman Jones, he listed the following offenses as justifying Turner's dis- charge: Violating safety rules by failing to wear both his hardhat and glasses; leaving his work station at "unauthor- ized times for reasons, apparently, other than Company business"; harassment of fellow workers; horseplay with fellow workers; and violation of the privilege of leaving 5 minutes early to clean up for lunch or get in line at the vending machine. I do not resolve these slight variances in the testimony of Turner and Davis, for they are not really material. Davis did not refer to any specific incident or time when these supposed offenses took place. He told Turner that the "sum total" of these offenses, in the eyes of his foreman and management people, justified the discharge and that even if he personally disagreed with their decision, he would stand behind their decision. After Lane left the meeting, Turner, referring to Lane, told Davis, "There is one good reason that we need a union." Davis asked what other reasons the employees had for wanting a union and Turner replied that the men were getting tired of listening to promises which were never kept. Turner asked Davis if he believed that Lane thought he was involved in the Union and Davis replied that he did not know. During the course of the conversation, Turner told Davis that he personally favored a union but was not active- ly working for it. Toward the conclusion of the meeting, Davis told Turner that he was sorry that an employee whose mechanical work was satisfactory had to leave for the rea- sons which Davis had outlined but that with Turner's back- ground and experience, Turner should have no problem in getting another job elsewhere .3 Let us now turn to the reasons assigned for Turner's discharge. It is undisputed that about 2 years prior to Turner's discharge, Plant Manager Lane had called a meet- ing of all the employees and told them that recently promul- gated safety regulations required that all employees wear safety glasses and hardhats while working and that anyone violating that regulation would first be warned, after a sec- ond such offense would be laid off for a week without pay, 3 The findings in this paragraph are based on the credited, and for the most part, mutually corroborative testimony of Turner and Davis Turner testified that during the conversation Davis acknowledged that he knew there was union activity at the plant Davis, on the other hand, denied knowing about the union activity before Turner mentioned it I do not resolve this conflict because even if Turner's account is accepted, I do not agree, as the General Counsel urges, that the statement attributed by Turner to Davis would amount to an implication that the employees' union activities were under surveillance and after a third offense would be dismissed. Turner credi- bly testified that he normally wears his glasses constantly but that he occasionally takes them off temporarily, as do many of the other employees, to read instruments or for some other specific purpose; that the supervisors, observing employees with their glasses off, sometimes ignore the situa- tion and at other times motion to the employee, by pointing to his eyes, to put his glasses on or ask him where his glasses are; and that on the day preceding his discharge, when Turner held his glasses momentarily in his hands, Lane motioned for him to put them on and Turner did so. After one employee had worn no glasses for 2 days, Lane asked him where his glasses were and when the employee replied that he had lost them Lane merely said that he would fur- nish the employee with another pair and did so. Turner's testimony regarding Respondent's laxity in the enforcement of the requirement that safety glasses be worn was corrobo- rated by employees Nicholas and Rutledge. There is no evidence to the contrary.4 With respect to Turner's other alleged deficiencies, there is no substantial evidence in the record to support these allegations. The only specific evidence adduced regarding Turner's abuse of the privilege granted employees of leaving 5 minutes early to wash up and get in line for lunch was one occasion about which Turner himself testified. Plant Man- ager Lane had accused Turner and a fellow employee of "jumping the gun" by 1 minute. Turner pointed out to Lane that the master clock showed that they had not jumped the gun, but Lane said his watch indicated they had. The only specific instance shown in the record when Turner was in a work area other than his own during work- ing hours and not on company business occurred 2 or 3 weeks before Turner's discharge, when an employee of the Structural Shop, Titwell, who was a good friend of Turner's, fell from a large tank on which he was working and Turner ran to him to ascertain how badly he was hurt. Again on the following day Turner left his machine for a few minutes to check with Titwell on how he was feeling. Turner's immedi- ate supervisor at the time, Ed Williams, testified that he assumed Turner and Titwell were close friends and assumed that the accident was the occasion for Turner's visits but that, at the request of Night-Shift Foreman Fizer, he told Turner "in a nice way" that he felt Turner should stay closer to his work area. Turner emphatically denied that Williams ever said anything to him about being away from his work station, but accepting Williams' recollection as the more accurate, it is obvious to me that Respondent could not have considered Turner's conduct under the circumstances, as serious offenses. Moreover, there is no evidence that such conduct ever came to the attention of Plant Manager Lane prior to his discharge of Turner. Turner, of course, did leave his work station and go to other areas of the plant from time to time but the nature of his work required him to do so. As Turner testified, a lot of his work comes from the structural shop and from the Ingersoll Rand department and it is necessary for him to be in those areas frequently to check 1 doubt that any mention was made to Turner that failure to wear his hardhat was one of the reasons for his discharge No evidence was adduced that he had in fact ever failed to wear his hardhat while working In any event, the record discloses that Respondent wasjust as lax in enforcing that requirement as the one regarding safety glasses KANAWHA MANUFACTURING COMPANY on different jobs and problems in connection with them, to pick up parts, or to return jobs to those departments for painting or shipping. Supervisor Williams testified that occasionally he would observe Turner move around his own department, the ma- chine shop, and talk and laugh with other employees but that he, Williams, "didn't pay much attention to that" be- cause Turner's machine would be running and Williams believed that he was working. There was no evidence what- ever adduced in support of the allegation that Turner har- assed any employee or engaged in horseplay and Davis, upon being asked by Turner whom he was alleged to have harassed, could not name anyone. I have no -doubt whatever that the reasons assigned to Turner for his discharge were not the true reasons. Turner's summary discharge on September 25, for the ostensible rea- son that he was not using his safety glasses, as it was his practice not to do when reading an instrument, against Respondent's background of extreme laxity in enforcing its safety rules and its failure even to follow its announced procedure in disciplining violations of those rules, must have appeared too obviously a flimsy reason for discharge when General Manager Davis discussed the matter with Plant Manager Lane and Foreman Jones. I am satisfied that they then sought to think up other offenses which they could add to that already indicated in the hope of making out a more plausible case against Turner. But these other alleged offenses, too, appear to me to be so insubstantial that I cannot believe that they had anything to do with the deci- sion to discharge Turner. Plant Manager Lane and Fore- man Jones, the only persons Davis allegedly consulted to ascertain the reason for Turner's discharge, were not even called to the witness stand to explain Plant Manager Lane's summary discharge action. Turner, as already noted, was considered a good worker by his immediate supervisor, Jones, and he had received four or five merit increases during his less than 4 years of employment with Respon- dent. The only plausible explanation for Lane's action in summarily discharging Turner would appear to be Lane's knowledge or belief that Turner was a leader in the union movement. For the reasons hereinbefore indicated, I have found that Lane, prior to September 25, knew or suspected that Turner was prominent in the union movement. Re- spondent was strongly opposed to having the Union repre- sent its employees. Assistant General Foreman Shelton, on the day following Turner's discharge, had implicitedly ac- knowledged that Turner's union activity was the real reason for his discharge when he told Employee Nicholas that Re- spondent was not going to fire any more men then, in re- sponse to Nicholas' assertion that he was for the Union and that if Shelton was going to fire him for that reason, he might as well do it then. I am thoroughly convinced and find, under all the cir- cumstances, that the reasons assigned by Respondent for Turner's discharge were mere pretexts and that the true reason was his union membership and activities. The dis- charge was accordingly in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 55 1. Respondent, by -discriminatorily restricting union leaders to their working areas and forbidding them to talk to fellow employees; by threatening employees with dis- charge in reprisal for supporting the Union; by threatening employees with stricter and more onerous working condi- tions, with loss of Christmas bonuses and other benefits and with possible plant closure should they select the Union to represent them; and by coercively interrogating an employ- ee as to whether he had signed a union card, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 2. By discriminatorily discharging Gerald R. Turner be- cause of his union membership and activities, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. A preponderance of the evidence does not support the allegations of the complaint that Respondent engaged in other unfair labor practices not specifically found herein. THE REMEDY It having been found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, my recommended Order herein will require that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. Turner was put back to work about a month following his discharge. There is no testimony regarding the circum- stances under which Turner was reinstated but Respondent's counsel, in his opening statement at the hear- ing, asserted that because of protests from groups of em- ployees against the discharge, and to improve employee morale, Respondent converted the discharge into a 2-week disciplinary layoff and gave Turner a little over 2 weeks in back wages. Since I have found the disciplinary action against Turner to have been discriminatorily motivated, his loss of work and wages, whether from his discharge or lay- off, must be considered equally discriminatory. To remedy the discrimination against Turner, my recommended Order will require that Respondent make him whole for his wages lost during the entire period he was off from work because of the discrimination against him, to the extent it has not already done so, with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum, as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. Respondent will also be required to restore to Turner all seniority and other rights and privileges which he may have lost because of the discriminatory action taken against him. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, there is hereby issued the following recommended: 56 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDERS The Respondent, Kanawha Manufacturing Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any employee in regard to his hire or tenure of employment or his terms or conditions of employment in order to discour- age union membership or activities. (b) Discriminatorily restricting union leaders to their working areas and forbidding them to talk to fellow employ- ees; threatening employees with discharge in reprisal for supporting the Union; threatening employees with stricter and more onerous working conditions, with loss of Christ- mas bonuses and other benefits, and with possible plant closure should they select the Union to represent them; and coercively interrogating any employee as to whether he has signed a union card. (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights guaran- teed under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces- sary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Make Gerald R. Turner whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy" and restore to him any seniority or other rights and privileges he may have lost as a result of such discrimination. (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, person- nel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (c) Post at its plant in Charleston, West Virginia, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 6 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 9, after being duly signed by an authorized represen- tative of Respondent, shall be posted by Respondent imme- diately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days therafter, in conspciuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily post- ed. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. 5In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 10246 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 6 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 " (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Re- spondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint herein be dis- missed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifi- cally found herein. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL make Gerald R. Turner whole for any wages lost between the date of his discharge on September 25, 1973, and the date he was reinstated, with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum, and he will suffer no loss of seniority or other rights and privileges by reason of his loss of work during that period. WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise disciminate against any employee because of his membership or activities in behalf of United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT discriminatorily restrict union leaders or advocates to their working areas or discriminatorily forbid them to talk to fellow employees. WE WILL NOT threaten employees with discharge in reprisal for supporting the Union. WE WILL NOT threaten employees with stricter and more onerous working conditions , with loss of Christ- mas bonuses or other benefits or with possible plant closure if they select the Union to represent them. WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate any employee as to whether he has signed a union card. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, re- strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the National La- bor Relations Act. KANAWHA MANUFACTURING COMPANY (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 concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be direct- ed to the Board's Office, Federal Office Building, Room 3003, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati Ohio 45202, Telephone 513-684-3663.