Pak-Mor Manufacturing Co.

PAK-MOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY Pak-Mor Manufacturing Company and United Glass and Ceramic Workers of North America, AFL- CIO-CLC. Case 5-CA-6550 October 22, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On July 31, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Sam- uel Ross issued the attached Decision in this pro- ceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief. 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 I and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions- and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Pak-Mor Manufacturing Company, Duffield, Virginia, its officers, agents, suc- cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. 1 In its exceptions and brief the Respondent contends that the Adminis- trative Law Judge's conduct of the hearing was unfair . In support of this contention, the Respondent alleges , in effect, that the Administrative Law Judge harassed , insulted, and cut off attempts of witnesses for the Respon- dent to explain apparent inconsistencies in their testimony . We have care- fully examined the portion of the record cited by the Respondent in support of its contentions, and have independently considered the entire record, including the Administrative Law Judge's Decision, and we are convinced that the Administrative Law Judge's conduct does not constitute legal preju- dice nor even an appearance of partisanship sufficient to warrant a rehear- ing. Cf. Indianapolis Glove Company, 88 NLRB 986 (1950). Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the record and briefs adequately present the issues and positions of the parties. 2 Respondent excepts to the Administrative Law Judge's finding that Re- spondent believed or knew that Robert Spears and Calvin Rutherford were union proponents, because such finding was based on inference rather than direct evidence . Upon a careful examination of the record , we agree with the Administrative Law Judge that Respondent believed or knew of Robert Spears' and Calvin Rutherford's union activities, and that these known or suspected activities were the motivating reason for their discharges. Based on the credited testimony of employee Billy Spears, Robert Spears' brother, Respondent was aware, at least as of February 9, 1974, of its em- ployees' union activities generally, and was specifically aware of Billy Spears' chief role in these activities. Indeed , Respondent unlawfully interro- gated Billy Spears as to who had attended the second union meeting of February 9, 1974. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE 211 SAMUEL Ross, Administrative Law Judge: This case was tried before me in Big Stone Gap, Virginia, on May 2 and 3, 1974, based on a charge filed by United Glass and Ce- ramic Workers of North America AFL-CIO-CLC, herein the Union, on February 19, 1974, against Pak-Mor Manu- facturing Company (herein the Respondent or the Compa- ny), and on a complaint which issued on March 28, 1974, which alleges that the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The Respondent filed an answer which denies the substan- tive allegations of the complaint and the commission of unfair labor practices . Upon the entire record , including my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by the parties, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. COMMERCE The Respondent is a Texas corporation which operates a plant at Duffield, Virginia (the only facility involved in this proceeding), where it manufactures refuse collection equip- ment. During the past 12 months, a representative period, the Respondent manufactured, sold, and shipped products valued in excess of $50,000 from its plant in Duffield, Vir- ginia, directly to places located outside the Commonwealth of Virginia. On the foregoing admitted facts, the Respon- dent concedes, and I find, that it is engaged in commerce and in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Both Robert Spears and Calvin Rutherford solicited other employees while at the plant to attend the two union meetings held prior to their discharge , both attended said meetings, and both signed union authoriza- tion cards . On the first workday following the second union meeting, Billy Spears, Robert Spears, and Calvin Rutherford were summarily discharged at the start of the shift and each for the same reasons , which reasons the Administrative Law Judge found to be pretextual. Based on the credited testimony of the Spears brothers and Calvin , Rutherford, none of the three were told at the time of their discharges all the reasons for their discharge now put forth, nor were they reprimanded prior to their discharge concern- ing the conduct now asserted to be the basis for their discharge . Moreover, at least until shortly before their discharge, all three were concededly satis- factory employees. Thus in early January, Billy and Robert Spears were rated by their immediate supervisor , Osborne, as very good in all or most of Respondent's performance factors, and during the later part of January, Assistant Superintendent McDonald told Billy Spears and Calvin Ruther- ford, whom the record reveals worked together as a team , that they were doing a fine job . Moreover , the record discloses that from and after mid- January Osborne and Superintendent Toney observed that Billy Spears, Robert Spears , and Calvin Rutherford were frequently talking by and among themselves at the plant . Under these circumstances , we find in agree- ment with the Administrative Law Judge that the record contains the requi- site evidence of the Respondent's belief or knowledge of Robert Spears' and Calvin Rutherford' s union activities , and we adopt the findings that their discharges violated Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act . Sunshine Food Mar- kets, Inc., 174 NLRB 497 (1969); Lawson Printers, Inc., 159 NLRB 771 (1966), enfd . 408 F.2d 1004 (C.A. 6, 1969). In so finding we disavow reliance on the fact that Billy and Robert Spears and Calvin Rutherford rode to and from work in the same carpool, inasmuch as the record is devoid of evi- dence that Respondent was aware of this fact. 214 NLRB No. 46 212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED It is also admitted, and I find, that United Glass and Ceramic Workers of North America, AFL-CIO-CLC, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issues Presented for Determination The complaint alleges that the Respondent discharged three employees on February 11, 1974,1 because of their membership in and activities on behalf of the Union, and that it thereby violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. The complaint further alleges that the Respondent also violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the conduct of a supervisor in interrogating an employee regarding his and other employees' union activities, and by threatening that the plant would close if the employees designated the Union as their representative. The Respondent contends that it had no knowledge of the union interest and/or ac- tivities of the three alleged discriminatees, and that it fired them for loafing on the job and for repeatedly going to the timeclock before the final buzzer sounded, in violation of company rules. In addition, the Respondent denied the un- lawful interrogation and plant closing threat attributed to its supervisor. There is thus presented for determination primarily a credibility issue. As explicated hereinafter, I find that the reasons asserted by the Respondent for firing these three employees are transparently pretextual and un- worthy of credence. B. The Discharge of the Three Principal Union Proponents The Respondent is a Texas corporation located in San Antonio, Texas, which manufactures truck bodies for ref- use collection. About July 1972, the Respondent com- menced operations at a new plant in Duffield, Virginia, and thereafter eventually hired about 95 production and maintenance employees.2 Three of the employees whom the Respondent hired to staff its new plant were Billy C. L. Spears, his brother Robert C. Spears, and Calvin B. Ruth- erford. Their later terminations on February 11, 1974, are alleged in this proceeding to have been illegally motivated by their union membership and activities. Billy Spears was hired in May 1973, Robert Spears began to work for the Respondent in August 1973, and Calvin Rutherford was employed in October 1973. All three worked as welders in the Respondent's final assembly department,3 and they rode to and from work together in a carpool. The three alleged discriminatees concededly were re- garded as satisfactory employees, at least until shortly be- Billy C. L. Spears, Robert C. Spears, and Calvin B. Rutherford. 2 As of April 19, 1974, the date of an election conducted by the Board in Case 5-RC-8866 to determine whether the Respondent's production and maintenance employees desired representation by the Union , there were 91 eligible voters. Calvin Rutherford originally worked in the Respondent's fabrication department and was transferred to the final assembly department "around the first of January [19741." fore their summary terminations on Monday morning, February 11, 1974. In this regard, the undisputed record discloses that Billy Spears was given a raise from $2.75 to $3 an hour 3 months after he was hired. On January 4, 1974, 1 month before his discharge, Billy Spears was rated by his supervisor, Rhea Osborne, the foreman of the final assembly department, as "very good" in all six of the "em- ployee performance factors" which include, acceptability of finished work, productivity, job knowledge, adaptabili- ty, reliability, and self-improvement activity. In connection with his evaluation of Billy Spears, Foreman Osborne com- mented, "Billy is doing a very good job. His attitudes are very good in every respect." 4 About a month before Billy Spears' discharge, Foreman Osborne told him and Charles Rutherford, a third cousin of Calvin Rutherford, that he was recommending them for promotion to leadmen. Two weeks later, Charles Rutherford inquired about the promo- tion he and Billy Spears "were supposed to get," and Os- borne told him that "he had put us in for leadmen, but for some reason or other, it didn't go through, and that he would keep on pushing." 5 Similarly, Robert Spears was rated by Foreman Osborne on January 8, 1974, 1 month before his discharge, as "very good" in productivity, adapt- ability, reliability, and self-improvement activity, and as "good" in acceptability of finished work and job knowl- edge. In connection with this evaluation, Osborne added under the heading of "Comments," "Robert's reliability and willingness is [sic] very good. He is showing me great improvement." 6 In addition, on or about January 20, 1974, Spears was recommended by Osborne for a raise of from $2.75 to $2.90 an hour which he thereafter received in his final paycheck after he was fired. Calvin Rutherford, the third alleged discriminatee, also received a raise of from $2.65 to $2.75 per hour "around the first of January [1974]." He concededly was regarded by Foreman Osborne as a "fair employee" at least until "around the middle of January [1974]." In the latter part of January, when Billy Spears and Calvin Rutherford were working together on a tailgate assembly doing some welding which the assembly department had overlooked and failed to make, they were complimented by Assistant Plant Superintendent Charles J. McDonald and told that they were doing "a fine job." In the latter part of December 1973, Billy Spears devel- oped an interest in getting a union to represent the Respondent's employees, and he obtained from a fellow employee the name and telephone number of Frank Ste- vens, a union official in Knoxville, Tennessee. That same day, after notifying his brother Robert and several other employees regarding his plans, Billy Spears telephoned Ste- vens in Knoxville and was informed that he was on vaca- tion for 2 weeks but that he would contact Spears on his return. A few days later, in the early part of January 1974, while still awaiting a return call from Stevens, Billy Spears was asked by a fellow employee, Danny Summey, whether he was "really sincere about getting a Union started," and See G.C. Exh. 2. 5 The findings in respect to the recommended promotion of Billy Spears and Charles Rutherford to leadmen are based on their credited testimony which was not controverted by Osborne when the latter testified as a witness for the Respondent. 6 See G.C. Exh. 3. PAK-MOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY 213 when he replied in the affirmative, Summey gave him the name and telephone number of Ray Snavely, the president of a local of the Union in nearby Kingsport, Tennessee. Spears called Snavely a few days later, told him that he was interested in trying to get a "union started at Pak-Mor," that he was awaiting a return call from Stevens, and that he would get in touch with Snavely again in a couple of weeks. About 2 weeks later, around "the latter part of January," 7 Billy Spears called Snavely again, and at the latter's sugges- tion, Spears agreed to hold a union meeting in his house in Big Stone Gap, Virginia, on February 2, and to invite inter- ested employees to attend. Following this telephone call, Billy Spears notified his brother Robert and fellow carpool rider Calvin Rutherford of the forthcoming union meeting, and the three of them spoke to other employees in the plant and invited them to attend the meeting. On February .2 at or about 8 p.m., Billy Spears met Snavely at the police station in Big Stone Gap by prear- rangement and led him to his house. The union meeting which ensued was attended by about 15 of the Respondent's employees, including Robert Spears and Cal- vin Rutherford. The employees' asked Snavely questions concerning what the Union could do for them and how to "go about organizing." Snavely told them that it would be necessary to secure employees' signatures to union authori- zation cards, but that such cards would not be available for about 3 weeks. Robert Spears urged Snavely to obtain the cards as soon as possible to lessen the possibility that the Respondent might acquire knowledge of their activities and take reprisal action. The meeting lasted for about 2 hours. On the following day, Snavely telephoned Billy Spears and advised him that union authorization cards were being printed and would be available on Thursday. At Snavely's suggestion, Billy Spears agreed to invite his coworkers to attend another union meeting on the following Saturday, February 9, at the Ruritan Club in Gate City, Virginia, a town nearer to the residences of many of Respondent's employees. During the ensuing week, Billy Spears, his brother Robert, and Calvin Rutherford invited many em- ployees at the Respondent's plant to attend the scheduled meeting. Some, whom the three could "trust completely," were told the precise time and place where the meeting would take place. Others were told by the three to meet them in the parking lot of the high school in Gate City. The meeting took place as scheduled. Three of the Union's offi- cials and 39 of the Respondent's employees attended. At the conclusion of the meeting, all 39, including the Spears brothers and Calvin Rutherford, signed the Union's au- thorization cards and were given additional cards for dis- tribution to and signature by their fellow employees. Gerald Dandridge is a foreman in the Respondent's em- ploy who supervises the assembly department. Dandridge's wife is a cousin of Billy and Robert Spears. During the morning of February 6, Billy Spears encountered Dan- dridge in the final assembly section of the Respondent's plant and, believing that he could trust Dandridge, told him that there had been a union meeting in his house the previous Saturday, February 2, and that another meeting was scheduled to take place the following Saturday. On Saturday, February 9, about 10:30 p.m., when Billy Spears returned home after attending the union meeting in Gate City, he received a message from his wife that Dandridge had called during his absence, and he accordingly tele- phoned Dandridge. During the course of the ensuing con- versation , Billy Spears told Dandridge that he and other employees of the Respondent had attended a union meet- ing that night. Dandridge asked, "How did it turn out?" Spears replied, "It turned out pretty good. 39 people showed up." Dandridge asked, "Was there anybody there out of my section?" Spears answered, "I'm not going to tell you one way or the other." Dandridge then said to Spears, "Why don't you drop this union bit?" Spears asked, "Why?" Dandridge replied, "Because it's gonna [sic] cause a lot of people to lose their jobs. Cause a lot of people to take pay cuts. And the Company will lock the doors." Dan- dridge further said that the Respondent would padlock its doors "before they would go union." Spears remarked that the Company "might as well get [its] padlock ready." The following Monday morning (February 11) when the two Spears brothers reported for work, they and Calvin Ruther- ford were peremptorily fired.8 The manner in which the Respondent fired the three employees was as follows: On Monday, February 11, the first workday following the union meeting on the previous Saturday evening, Billy and Robert Spears arrived at the Respondent's plant shortly before their 7 a.m. starting time.9 As they proceeded towards the Company's cafeteria, Billy was given four additional signed union authorization s I base my findings above on the credited testimony of Billy Spears whose testimony I regard as forthright, honest, and reliable in most respects, including the foregoing. Dandridge admitted having a conversation with Billy Spears about the Union on the night of February 9, but his version was substantially different. According to Dandridge . Spears told him that "sev- eral employees went to the union and signed a union card ," and that he expressed a lack of interest in Spears' information , "and didn't believe him anyway." Dandridge denied that he made any " reference to shutting down the plant." To the contrary, he testified that it was Spears who said. "We have got the Company by the balls now, and so you might as well shut the plant because we are going to bring the Union in." I place no credence in Dandridge's denial and I regard his testimony as unreliable in general, and worthy of credence only to the extent that it accords with other testimony which I credit. I base this credibility resolution not only on Dandridge's demeanor and his evasions, but also on the patent implausibility of his testimony on occasion . For example . Dandridge testified that, notwith- standing his wife's relationship to Spears, he did not "socialize with Billy Spears a great deal." This is hardly " the whole truth" in the light of Dandridge's admission that, when his wife was sick , Billy's wife acted as babysitter for his children , and that on the night of February 9 his wife called cousin Billy Spears "to have Billy and his brother Larry ... come to help me unpin [my car from ] my trailer." Moreover, in the light of Dandridge's admission that , about the previous Christmas, Billy Spears dis- cussed the subject of getting a union into the plant with him. I regard Dandridge's assertion of disbelief of Spears' report of the union meeting on February 9, and his profession of disinterest therein, as implausible and worthy of no credence or belief. Employees do not organize or join unions for the purpose of shutting down their employer's plant and terminating their employment. I therefore find , contrary to Dandridge's denial, that Spears' statement , whether it was that "the Company might as well get its padlock ready," or "you may as well shut the plant ," quite obviously was his response to Dandridge's threat that the Respondent would close down "be- fore they would go union." Dandridge also denied having any conversation with Billy Spears on February 6 about the Union . In the light of my assess- ment that Spears' testimony is generally reliable, and Dandridge 's is not, I do not credit Dandridge's denial. 9 Calvin Rutherford did not report to work that day because of a nose- 7 This and all dates hereinafter refer to 1974 unless otherwise noted . bleed. 214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cards by an employee who had attended the union meeting on Saturday night, and he put them in a notebook which he kept in his pocket. Billy then rejoined his brother near the cafeteria, and Foreman Rhea Osborne walked up to them and told them that Plant Superintendent John A. To- ney wanted to see them in his office. They followed Os- borne to Toney's office where Toney and Assistant Plant Superintendent Charles J. McDonald were waiting. Toney told Billy Spears, "I hear that you're dissatisfied with your job, cursing the foreman, and walking around with your hands in your pockets." Toney then looked towards Robert Spears, and said, "You stood around Friday [for] 45 min- utes and didn't strike a lick at a snake." Billy Spears said, "Mr. Toney, if you don't believe I do my job right, you can ask Mr. McDonald, Ray Osborne, or Jerry Dandridge about my . . . doing my job." Toney retorted, "I don't want to hear that shit." Robert Spears asked, "Does this mean we're fired?" Toney replied, "Yes." Robert Spears asked for their termination slips, and Toney said they would get them on Friday when they picked up their final paychecks. 10 Toney then instructed Osborne to accompany the Spears out of the plant while they picked up their tools and turned in their hardhats, and to make certain that they did not talk to anyone "on the way" out of the plant.' I On February 11, immediately following the termination of Billy and Robert Spears, Toney notified Charles Ruther- ford to tell his cousin Calvin, who was absent that day, that he was fired, that he was not to come in to work, and that he could come in to pick up his check the following Fri- day. 12 100n Friday, the Spears again asked for their termination notices and were told that the Company "does not give these slips out." 11 The findings above are based on the mutually corroborative and cred- ited testimony of Billy and Robert Spears . The Respondent's testimony regarding the termination conversation with the Spears was given by Toney and Osborne (McDonald was not called). Their versions of what was said did not accord either with each other or with that of the Spears. According to Osborne, when he brought the Spears to Toney's office, Toney told them that he was going to fire them. They asked, "Why?" and Toney said, "For loafing and going to the timeclock too early ." Toney testified, "I told them that it didn't look like they was [sic] satisfied. Because, if they didn't want to cooperate with us , we wasn't [sic ] satisfied with what they was [sic] doing, so we might as well go our ways." Toney further testified that he told the Spears that he was firing them for "walking around, talking . When they should be getting production out." Toney conceded that he did not tell the Spears "any other reason" for their termination. Thus, Toney's version of this termination conversation in effect corroborates Billy Spears ' denial that Toney said anything about "clocking out early, or clock jumping." In any event, I regard the testimony of both Osborne and Toney as frequently vague and lacking in specificity , evasive, occasionally contradictory, and in some instances patently implausible . Based thereon , as well as on demeanor, I consider their testimony as generally unreliable, and worthy of little, if any, credence. I therefore credit their testimony regarding this conversation only to the extent that it accords with that of the Spears credited above. On direct examination, Toney testified that he asked Osborne and Mc- Donald to convey the discharge message to Charles Rutherford. On cross- examination, Toney first denied that he personally gave the message to Charles Rutherford , and he testified that he only went "far enough out in the plant to see" that Osborne and McDonald were carrying out his instruc- tions and were giving his discharge message to Charles . Toney then was confronted with his affidavit to the Board which stated, contrary to his previous testimony , " I went out of the office into the final assembly depart- ment, and told Charles Rutherford, Calvin's cousin, to tell ,Calvin not to come in to work ." He then testified first that he spoke to Charles Rutherford about it "later in the day," and then that he did so "right behind Charley [McDonald] and Ray [Osborne ] had finished talking to him [Charles Ruth- erford]." The foregoing isjust one example of Toney's self-contradictions on Toney's message was conveyed to Calvin Rutherford that same evening, but the latter nevertheless reported in to work the next morning. He was observed by Toney shortly after he arrived at the plant, and was told by Osborne to go to Toney's office. There, in the presence of McDonald and Osborne, Toney told Calvin Rutherford that he was fired, and when Calvin asked, "Why?" Toney said that it was for "standing around with his hands" in his pockets on Friday while Toney watched him for 45 minutes.13 C. The Pretextual Reasons Asserted for the Discharge of the Three Alleged Discriminatees According to Plant Superintendent Toney, the decision to fire Billy and Robert Spears and Calvin Rutherford was arrived at by him on Friday night, February 8 about 8 p.m., several hours after the three employees had left the plant at the conclusion of their workweek. Toney testified that he decided to fire these three. employees because of their habitual walking around the plant and talking when they should have been engaged in productive work, and because on Thursday, February 7, he observed them going to the timeclock to check out at 4:28 p.m., 2 minutes before the buzzer announced the end of their workday. As previ- ously noted, I regard the reasons asserted by the Respon- dent for the discharge of these three union proponents as patently implausible and unworthy of belief. 1. The alleged loafing by the three employees According to Toney, he observed Robert Spears "walk- ing around and talking" "practically every day" since about January I. Toney testified that, on occasions, the periods of loafing by Robert Spears were as long as 30 minutes, and that on Monday, February 4, he observed Robert doing no work at all from 7 a.m. to 7:45 a.m. How- ever, contrary to Toney's testimony, Foreman Osborne tes- tified that Robert Spears was a "good employee" until about the middle of January, when he "started to have lost time due to talking-loafing." Osborne also testified that, on a number of occasions "after the middle of January," he received reports from Foreman Dandridge, and he, person- ally "witnessed that they [the three alleged discriminatees] were in his [Dandridge's] department loafing, talking." Os- borne testified that he told the two Spears brothers that it was "against the rules" for them to go to other depart- ments, and to go back "and stay on their jobs." Osborne was asked but was unable to specify a single occasion when he administered these alleged admonitions to Billy and Robert Spears. Moreover, contrary to his prior testimony regarding witnessing all three - discriminatees in Dandridge's department "loafing, talking," Osborne later testified, that he had no, recollection of "Calvin [Ruther-, ford] being out of the department." Toney's only.testimony regarding alleged loafing or 'talking .by Billy Spears and Calvin Rutherford came -in response to a question as to what, if anything,, the three alleged discriminatees did on Friday, February 8, which prompted him to decide at 8 which I base my lack of regard for the credibility of his testimony. 13 The findings above are based on the credited testimony of Calvin Ruth- erford. PAK-MOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY 215 p.m. that evening to fire them. His answer to that question was, "Nothing. No more than the usual trend of unneces- sary talking, standing around with their hands in their pockets." The Respondent has no rule against talking in the plant, and Osborne concededly made no written record of any of the admonitions which he allegedly administered to the three alleged discriminatees. I place no credence in any of the Respondent's testimo- ny regarding the alleged loafing by Billy and Robert Spears and Calvin Rutherford . Toney admittedly said nothing to Robert Spears when the latter allegedly engaged in loafing "practically everyday " for extended periods of time. When asked why he neither said nor did anything when these incidents assertedly occurred, Toney testified that it was "because I deal with my men through my foremen." How- ever, contrary to Toney's testimony that he deals with em- ployees exclusively through his foremen , Toney admitted that he "is quick" to tell employees when they do "a good job" and when they do "a poor job ." I do not believe that any plant superintendent whose aim , like Toney's, is to get out production , would stand by and watch an employee loafing "practically every day" for an extended period of 30 to 45 minutes without reprimanding the employee or even telling him to go to work . Accordingly, in the light of the conceded absence of any comment by Toney to Robert Spears regarding his alleged "walking around and talking practically every day," I place no credence in Toney's testi- mony that Robert 's summary discharge on the morning of February II was based thereon. Billy Spears, Robert Spears, and Calvin Rutherford con- cededly were regarded as good and satisfactory employees until about the middle of January. The testimony of Toney and Osborne in effect charges that all three of these em- ployees suddenly changed in mid-January from good em- ployees to loafers and procrastinators whose conduct mer- ited their peremptory termination . The record belies their testimony. As previously noted, Billy Spears was rated on January 4 as "very good" in all six "performance factors," and he was evaluated by Foreman Osborne as "doing a very good job. His attitudes are very good in every re- spect." Robert Spears was rated on January 8 as "very good" in four of the six performance factors, "good" in the other two, and Osborne evaluated his "reliability and will- ingness [as] very good. He is showing me great improve- ment." In addition , about January 20, just 2 weeks before his discharge, Robert Spears was recommended by Os- borne for a raise which Robert received for the first time with his final paycheck . 14 Furthermore, as found above on uncontroverted testimony , in the latter part of January, Os- borne told Charles Rutherford that he had recommended and was still "pushing" to promote Billy Spears to the posi- tion of leadman. Moreover, both Billy Spears and Calvin Rutherford were complimented in the latter part of Janu- ary by assistant plant superintendent in the presence of Foreman Osborne and were told that they were doing "a fine job." Billy and Robert Spears and Calvin Rutherford all testi- 14 1 regard as implausible and place no credence in the testimony of To- ney and Osborne that this raise was given to Robert Spears to encourage him to correct his alleged shortcomings. fied that, prior to their summary dismissal on February 11, they were never reprimanded either for walking around the plant, or for talking to other employees when they should have been working . In the light of the foregoing record, I believe them . Conversely, I consider the testimony of To- ney and Osborne that these concededly satisfactory em- ployees suddenly underwent a complete transformation in performance and attitudes, and that they engaged in re- peated acts of loafing despite admonitions to cease, as wor- thy of no credence whatsoever . I further conclude from all the foregoing that the assertion by the Respondent of this reason for their discharge is a patently incredible pretext to conceal its true motive for their termination. 2. The "clockjumping" In December 1973, the Respondent installed a buzzer system at its Duffield plant with which it announced the beginning of the shift, the impending end of the shift, and 10 minutes later its termination . The next to the last buzzer was the signal for the commencement of a 10 -minute peri- od during which employees were required to clean up their work area, put away their tools, and fill out their work- sheets. The last buzzer signaled the end of the workday and permission to clock out and go home. According to the credited testimony of Billy Spears, the buzzer and the time- clock were frequently not synchronized , and it was not un- common for the final buzzer to sound about 3 minutes before the timeclock indicated the end of the shift, and vice versa. Billy Spears admitted that there were five or six oc- casions when he and 30 other employees stood in line at the timeclock after the last buzzer sounded and waited a couple of minutes until the timeclock indicated it was time to punch out. Billy Spears admitted that there also were many times when he and other employees went to the time- clock about a minute before the last buzzer (which was not synchronized with the timeclock) sounded . According to the credited testimony of Billy Spears, Robert Spears, and Calvin Rutherford, they were never personally admonished by any supervisor for going to the timeclock too early, and they were never warned that they would be discharged for doing so. About January 30, the Respondent posted a three-page notice to its employees on its bulletin board dealing with 13 subjects, including wages, holidays, vacations , safety, ab- senteeism, and several rules.15 On the subject of the "Last Ten (10) Minutes of the Day," the notice stated as follows: This time was designated for the purpose of allow- ing time to clean up the area, straighten welding tools, leads and micro wire machines , bleed guages, fill out work sheets, put away tools, turn in tools to the store- room, and any other general cleaning in the plant. Due to the inability of some men to follow these pro- cedures, we the management, find it necessary to do the following for those not using this time wisely: (For those not cleaning) 1. Reduce this time to five (5) minutes, or 2. Dock any man in violation of this rule fifteen is Resp. Exh. 1. 216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (15) minutes for the day. 3. Work will start when the horn blows and we will stop by the horn, not by some other time piece. On the day following the posting of the said notice, the Respondent's foremen, including Osborne, assembled the employees under their supervision, and told them to read the notice on the bulletin board. According to the credited testimony of Billy Spears, Osborne told the employees in his department that "some people had been punching out early," "walking around the plant where they didn't be- long," and "spot welding without helmets." He said that if these practices "wasn't [sic] stopped, that we would be rep- rimanded, or docked, or other action would be taken." The Respondent contends that it fired Billy Spears, Rob- ert Spears, and Calvin Rutherford on Monday morning, February 11, inter alia, because in the period following the posting of the notice to employees on January 30, they continued to engage in the practice of going to the time- clock early and standing in line to check out. As previously indicated, I consider the Respondent's testimony in sup- port of this asserted reason for the discharge of these three employees as patently implausible, and I regard the assign- ment of this ground for their dismissal as an afterthought and pretext to conceal its real reason for their summary termination. Foreman Osborne testified in support of this contention that, during his meeting with the employees in his depart- ment on January 31, he warned them that "most people had been going to the clock early," and the Plant Superin- tendent Toney had assured him "that if it did not cease, that drastic action would be taken." Osborne further testi- fied that following this meeting "everyone ceased from making this [going to the timeclock early] a habit except Billy, Calvin and Robert," but that they continued in this practice "more than 10 or 12 [times.]" 16 According to Os- borne, other employees "occasionally went [to the time- clock early] after the rules were posted," but "they ceased" after he "talked to them." Osborne testified that about February 5 or 6, he saw Calvin Rutherford and Billy Spears start to go to the timeclock "2 or 3 minutes early," and he told them "to go back to their immediate work area" because "the buzzer had not rang [sic] for quitting time," but they ignored his instruction , and "instead of returning to the work area" they "went back to the time- clock." Osborne assertedly reported this incident to Plant Superintendent Toney and Assistant Plant Superintendent McDonald, and Toney allegedly told Osborne that "he had several applications on file . . . and regardless of how good [these] men had been . . . he was going to have to fire them if they did not live up to the company rule." 17 Osborne admittedly did not convey Toney's alleged warning to Cal- vin Rutherford or Billy Spears the next day, and he con- 16 Osborne's testimony in this respect obviously is false since the three employees worked only 7 days after this meeting (including January 31) before they were fired. 17 Even assuming the credibility of Osborne's testimony in this regard (which I do not), it serves only to disclose that as of February 5 or 6 Toney still regarded these employees as "good men ," and that Osborne's and Toney's testimony regarding their transformation in mid-January from "good men " to loafers is patently false. cededly neither reprimanded them for the claimed infrac- tion of the rule nor docked them from their pay pursuant to the rule. According to Osborne, on February 7, he and Toney were standing together "outside the office" about "3 or 4 minutes before quitting time," when the two Spears brothers and Calvin Rutherford walked by on their way to the timeclock and "grinned or laughed." Toney's version of this alleged incident contradicted Osborne's testimony that he was with Toney when it assert- edly took place. According to Toney, he "was standing alone" at 4:28 p.m. on February 7 when the two Spears and Calvin Rutherford "walked by me . . . Calvin made a re- mark to him [Billy Spears]. They both turned around and left." Toney further testified that he then checked the clocks, found that they were perfectly synchronized," 18 and then "went over to Ray Osborne, the foreman," and allegedly told him, "You're going to have about three good men fired." 19 Although this admittedly was the last incident of alleged misconduct for which Toney assertedly discharged the three employees, Toney did not terminate their employ- ment the next day (February 8) when they reported for work.20 Furthermore, the Respondent did not even repri- mand the three on February 8 for their alleged infraction of the rule the preceding evening, nor did it dock them from their pay as the rule provided. Moreover, although according to Toney, the three "left" the plant at 4:28 p.m. and the clocks allegedly "were perfectly synchronized," the Respondent did not produce or offer their timecards which would show the time of their departure.21 The Respondent offered no explanation for its failure to produce the time- cards. I infer therefrom that the timecards, if produced, would not have corroborated Toney's testimony that the three employees "walked by" him on February 7 at 4:28 p.m. "and left" at that time. 2 Finally, when Toney did fire the two Spears brothers on Monday morning, February 11, after they had attended the union meeting in Gate City on Saturday, February 9 (which they had promoted); accord- ing to his own testimony and that of the two Spears, he said nothing to them about "clocking out early, or clock- jumping" on February 7 or any other day, and he did not ascribe their dismissal to that conduct.z3 All of the fore- going, including my lack of regard for the credibility of Toney and Osborne, the timing of the terminations, the absence of reprimands to the three employees for clock- jumping, and the failure of the Respondent to follow its own rule regarding the last 10 minutes of the day, persuade 18 Toney's testimony that he first checked the clocks and found them synchronized clearly discloses, as Billy Spears testified , that the clocks fre- quently did not operate in unison. 19 See fn . 17, supra. 20I regard as implausible and place no credence in Toney's testimony that he did not fire them on February 8 because " I won't fire a man under temper." As of the morning of February 8; even assuming Toney had lost his temper. he had had 15 hours to cool off. 21 Billy Spears frankly testified that he had no recollection as to whether or not he clocked out early on February 7. Robert Spears denied going to the clock before "the second buzzer sounded on February 7. I regard them both as reliable witnesses and credit their testimony. 22 International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Im- plement Workers of America (UAW) v. N.L.R.B., 459 F.2d 1329 (C.A.D.C., 1972); 2 Wigmore. Evidence, §285 (3rd ed. 1940). 23 See fn . 11, supra. PAK-MOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY 217 me that the summary discharge of these "three good men" on February II was unrelated to going to the timeclock early, and that the assignment of that reason for their ter- mination is an afterthought on the part of the Respondent and a pretext to conceal its real reason for this action. D. The Respondent's Knowledge of the Union Activities of the Three Alleged Discriminatees As found above, on February 6, Billy Spears told Fore- man Gerald Dandridge (whose wife is Spears' cousin) that there had been a union meeting in his house on February 2, and that another meeting was scheduled to take place on the following Saturday, February 9. As further found above, after that second union meeting, Billy Spears tele- phoned Dandridge and he undisputedly apprised him of the fact that 39 employees had attended and that all of them had signed union authorization cards. According to Dandridge, he did not convey this information to Plant Superintendent Toney until about 10:30 a.m. on Monday, February 11, several hours after the latter fired Billy and Robert Spears and Calvin Rutherford. Similarly, Toney testified that his first knowledge that Respondent's em- ployees were attempting to organize was received by him from Dandridge on February II after 10 a.m., and thus after he had fired the three union proponents. As indicated hereinafter, I find the testimony of both Dandridge and Toney concerning their knowledge of the union organiza- tional activity and their reactions to the receipt of that knowledge as obviously false and worthy of no credence. Dandridge testified, "The first time I heard that a union might come into Pac-More [sic] was when we received a letter from the National Labor Relations Board that we might possible have a union come in." 24 However, con- trary to this testimony of Dandridge, he admittedly had been apprised by Billy Spears on Saturday (February 9) about the union meeting that had been held that very eve- ning, and he had been informed that 39 employees had signed union cards. Moreover, as found above, he previ- ously had been apprised by Billy Spears on February 6 that a union meeting had been held in Spears' house on Febru- ary 2, and that another meeting was scheduled for the fol- lowing Saturday, February 9. It is ' thus obvious that Dandridge's testimony quoted above regarding when he first became aware of union organizing activity is false. I have previously indicated my disbelief of Dandridge's testi- mony,25 and I similarly regard his testimony that he with- held from Toney the information which he acquired from Billy Spears on February 6 and 9 until after Billy Spears, Robert Spears, and Calvin Rutherford had been fired on Monday morning, February 11. In my view, the words of Judge Learned Hand in Dyer v. MacDougall, 201 F.2d 265, 269 (C.A. 2, 1952), quoted with approval by the Supreme Court in N.L.R.B. v. Walton Manufacturing Co., 369 U.S. 404, 408 (1962), are particularly appropriate to Dandridge's testimony regarding when he told Toney about the union 2' The letter to which Dandridge erroneously referred as from the Board was a demand for recognition from the Union which the Respondent re- ceived on February 14. See Resp. Exh. 2. 25 See In . 8, supra. meeting that took place on Saturday night. Judge Hand there stated: For the demeanor of a witness ". . . may satisfy the tribunal, not only that the witness' testimony is not true, but that the truth is the opposite of his story; for the denial of one, who has a motive to deny, may be uttered with such hesitation, discomfort, arrogance or defiance, as to give assurance that he is fabricating, and that, if he is, there is no alternative but to assume the truth of what he denies." Toney's testimony regarding the report he received from Dandridge about Billy Spears' Saturday night telephone call to Dandridge was vague, quite contrived, and patently spurious. It also was contrary in several respects to Dandridge's version of what he told Toney. Dandridge tes- tified that he told Toney that Billy Spears had telephoned him and said that the employees held a union meeting at Gate City, Virginia. Toney, on the contrary, testified that Dandridge "didn't know" where the meeting had taken place. Toney admitted that Dandridge told him who had telephoned him and had given him the information about the union meeting. However, Toney professed a lack of memory of whom he was told it was. Inasmuch as Toney allegedly received this information about 10 a.m. on Feb- ruary 11, and the source was Billy Spears whom he had just fired 3 hours earlier, Toney's asserted lack of recollection is, in my view, obviously false, and an indication of the incredibility of all his testimony regarding when Dandridge told him about Billy Spears' telephone call. Dandridge tes- tified that he told Toney that "they had 39 cards signed." Toney testified that, after hearing this information from Dandridge, he "kind of laughed and said it was just a ru- mor." He also testified that Plant Manager Thompson, af- ter hearing Dandridge repeat what Spears had told him, concurred that "it was just a rumor." I regard it as taxing credibility beyond belief that any plant official, after being apprised by one of his foremen that an employee had in- formed him that his employees had just attended a union meeting, and that 39 of them had signed union cards, would laugh it off and conclude, without investigation, that it was just a rumor. I therefore place no credence whatso- ever in the testimony of both Dandridge and Toney that Dandridge did not tell Toney about the telephone call he received from Billy Spears on Saturday night until after Toney fired Billy Spears and Robert Spears on Monday morning when they arrived at the plant to work. The record in this case undisputably establishes that Foreman Dandridge had knowledge of the union activities of Billy Spears. It is well established that such knowledge by a supervisor is imputable to his employer.26 It is also clearly inferrable that the Respondent either knew or be- lieved that Billy's brother Robert, and fellow carpool rider Calvin Rutherford also were union proponents, as indeed they were.27 In the light of the timing of the peremptory 26 See, for example, Red Line Transfer & Storage Company, Inc., 204 NLRB 116 (1973): UNECO, Inc., 175 NLRB 567, 570 (1969), enfd. 433 F.2d 974 (C.A. 8, 1970). 27 Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation, 146 NLRB 1492, 1495 (1964) (J.T. Brown). 218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD discharge of these "three good men" immediately after the union meeting which they had actively promoted, and Toney's instructions to Osborne that they be escorted from the plant "and not let them talk to anyone on the way," I find, that Toney, as well as Dandridge, had knowledge that the three were union proponents and adherents before To- ney fired them. As the court of appeals, aptly said in N. L. R.B. v. United Mineral & Chemical Corporation,28 .. . the company's evidence was of the very sort war- ranting a trier of the facts in believing the truth to be the opposite of what was asserted. E. Concluding Findings 1. Interference, restraint, and coercion of employees discharge of these employees, whom Plant Superintendent Toney referred to as "three good men," were clearly pre- textual and unworthy of credence of belief. In Shattuck Denn Mining Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 362 F.2d 466, 470 (C.A. 9, 1966), the court of appeals aptly stated the follow- ing in respect to the assignment of pretextual reasons for discharge: Nor is the trier of the fact-here the trial examiner- required to be any more naif than is a judge. If he 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. As found above, when Billy Spears told Foreman Dan- dridge on Saturday, February 9, that he had attended a union meeting in Gate City, Virginia, and that 39 employ- ees had attended, Dandridge asked Spears whether any of the employees in his department had attended , suggested to Spears that he drop "this union bit," and told him that a union in the plant would cause "a lot of people to take pay cuts," and "to lose their jobs." As further found above, Dandridge also told Spears that the Respondent would padlock its doors "before they would go union." The complaint alleges and the General Counsel contends that Foreman Dandridge's interrogation and statements above constitute interference with , and restraint and coer- cion of, employees' activities within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I find merit in the contention . Interroga- tion by a supervisor concerning the identity of employees who attended a union meeting clearly restrains employees from exercising their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, especially in the context of Dandridge's statement that the Respondent would close its doors "before they would go union." 29 The latter threat obviously also is coercive. I therefore find that , by the foregoing interrogation and threat by Dandridge , the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 2. The discriminatory discharge of Billy Spears, Robert Spears, and Calvin Rutherford As found above, on Monday morning, February 11, the Respondent fired Billy Spears and Robert Spears when they arrived at the plant to go to work and, at the same time, it sent word to Calvin Rutherford, who had not come to work that day, that he too was fired. All three of the employees thus discharged were active proponents of the Union at the Respondent's plant, and on the Saturday eve- ning preceding their discharge they had attended a union meeting which they had actively promoted and at which 39 employees, including them, had signed union authorization cards. As further found above, the reasons asserted for the 28 391 F.2d 829, 833 (C.A. 2, 1968). 29 N. L. R. B. v. McCormick Concrete Company of S. C., Inc,: 371 F.2d 149. 151 (C.A. 4, 1967). The record does not disclose any misconduct or violation of the Respondent's rules by these employees on Friday, February 8, their last day of work, and it is not contended that their terminations were based on any misconduct on that day. Viewed in the light of the foregoing, the timing of the summary dismissal of these "three good men" immedi- ately after they reported to work following their attendance at the union meeting which they promoted, the instruction that they be escorted from the plant and not be allowed to "talk to anyone on the way [out]," and the pretextual rea- sons asserted for their terminations, I am persuaded and find that the real reason for their discharges without prior warning was their activity in promoting the Union, and to discourage union membership and adherence by its em- ployees. I therefore find that by firing them the Respon- dent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the act. 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 of the Respondent described in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation 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 the Respondent has engaged in cer- tain unfair labor practices, I will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the Respondent terminated the em- ployment of. Billy C. L. Spears, Robert C. Spears, and Cal- vin B . Rutherford and thereafter failed and refused to reemploy, them because they engaged in union and con- certed activities protected by the Act, I will recommend that the Respondent be ordered to offer them immediate reinstatement to their former positions or, if they no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without preju- dice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and PAK-MOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY 219 make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them by the payment to them a sum of money equal to the amount they normally would have earned from the date of their termination to the date of reinstatement, less their net earnings during said period, with backpay computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board.30 I will also recommend that the Respondent 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 rec- ords and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze and determine the amounts of backpay due under the terms of this recommended remedy. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent, Pak-Mor Manufacturing Company, is an employer engaged in commerce and in operations af- fecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. United Glass and Ceramic Workers of North Ameri- ca, AFL-CIO-CLC, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By terminating the employment of Billy C. L. Spears, Robert C. Spears, and Calvin B. Rutherford because they engaged in union and concerted activities for mutual aid or protection guaranteed to employees by the Act, and by thereafter failing and refusing to reemploy them , the Re- spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 4. By the foregoing conduct, by coercively interrogating employees regarding their union activities and sympathies, and by threatening to close the plant if the employees des- ignated a union as their representative , the Respondent has interfered with , restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and con- clusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER 31 Respondent, Pak-Mor Manufacturing Company, Duf- field, Virginia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any employee in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any other term or condition of employment for engaging in any activity protected by Section 7 of the Act. (b) Coercively interrogating employees regarding their union membership , activities, or desires. (c) Threatening employees with plant closure , or other reprisals, to discourage union membership or activities. (d) In any manner interfering with, restraining , or coerc- ing employees in the exercise of their rights to self -organi- zation, to form labor organizations, to join or assist United Glass and Ceramic Workers of North America, AFL- CIO-CLC, or any other labor organization , to bargain col- lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from engaging in such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Billy C. L. Spears, Robert C. Spears, and Cal- vin B. Rutherford immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or , if they no longer exist , to substantially equivalent positions , without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed , and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against them in the manner provided in the section of this Decision entitled "The Rem- edy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents , for examination and copying , all pay- roll records , social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records neces- sary to analyze and determine the amount of backpay due under the terms of this recommended Order. (c) Post at its office and plant in Duffield , Virginia, cop- ies of the notice marked "Appendix." 32 Copies of said no- tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re- gion 5, after being duly signed by the Respondent , shall be posted by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicu- ous places , including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 5, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. 30F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950): backpay shall in- clude the payment of interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum to be computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). 31 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. 32 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." 220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a trial at which all sides had the opportunity to present their evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post this notice and we intend to carry out the Order of the Board. The Act gives all employees these rights: To engage in self-organization To form, join, or help unions To bargain collectively through a representative of their own choosing To act together for collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection To refrain from any and all these things. WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with these rights. More specifically, WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against you in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment for engaging in any of the activities listed above that are protected by the Act. WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate you regarding your union membership, activities, or desires. WE WILL NOT threaten you with plant closure or other reprisals to discourage union membership or ac- tivities. Since it was decided that we violated the Act by terminating the employment of Billy C. L. Spears, Robert C. Spears, and Calvin B. Rutherford because they engaged in union and concerted activities pro- tected by the Act, WE WILL offer them full reinstate- ment to their former jobs, and WE WILL pay them for any loss they suffered because we fired them. WE WILL respect your rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist any labor organization, or to bar- gain collectively in respect to terms or conditions or employment through United Glass and Ceramic Workers of North America, AFL-CIO-CLC, or any representative of your choice, or to refrain from such activity, and WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of these rights. PAK-MOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY