Teledyne-Allvac, Inc.

886 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATION_`; :=LARD Teledyne-Allvac, Inc. and Drivers, Chauffeurs,-Ware- housemen and Helpers Local -No. 71, International' Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America. Cases 1 1-CA-5777 and 11-CA-5833 May 9, 1975 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On January 28, 1975, Administrative Law Judge Robert Cohn 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 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 Re- lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Teledyne-Allvac, Inc., Monroe, North Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. i In adopting the Administrative Law Judge's finding of the 8(a)(3) viola- tion, we do not rely on the size of the Plant in order to establish that Respondent had knowledge of Taylor's union activities prior to his dis- charge. - DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ROBERT COHN, Administrative Law Judge: This con- solidated proceeding, heard before me at Monroe, North Carolina, on October 21, 22, and 23, 1974,' with all parties present, involves a complaint issued' pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein the Act), alleging that Teledyne-Allvac, Inc. (herein the Company or Respondent), interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act, by engaging in certain conduct I All dates are 1974, unless otherwise indicated 2 September 19 (amended October 7), based upon original charges filed June 12 (Case 11-CA-5777) and August 9 (Case 11 -CA-5833). described more fully herein, including the discharge of an employee in order to discourage membership in and activities on behalf of Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help- ers Local No. 71, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (herein the Charging Party or Union), in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. By its duly filed answer, as amended, Respondent admitted the facts constituting the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint, as well as the status of the Union as a labor organization, but denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. At the hearing, counsel for the General Counsel was al- lowed to further amend the consolidated complaint to allege an additional violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. Within the time allowed following the close of the hearing, written briefs have been received from counsel for the Respondent and from counsel for the General Counsel, which have been duly considered. Upon the pleadings, stipulations, and argu- ments of counsel, the evidence, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses,' and the entire record in the case, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS4 I ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background The Respondent, at its Monroe facility, is engaged in the manufacture of high temperature alloys, employing approxi- mately 150-175 production and maintenance employees Most of the events which gave rise to the issues involved in the instant case occurred in and about the raw materials area of the plant where the Company receives and stores the raw materials which are ultimately processed and distributed to its customers. In the spring of 1974, there were five employees who worked in the raw materials area, which number in- cluded a "work leader" named Jerry Sam Taylor. The latter was responsible to the superintendent of the induction melt department (Vic Lowery) who was, in turn, responsible to the plant superintendent (H. C. McBride). As far as the record shows, the employees at the Respon- dent's Monroe facility have never been represented for collec- tive-bargaining purposes by a labor organization." The or- ganizational campaign of the Charging Party commenced around May 1 apparently as a result of a conversation be- tween the said Jerry Taylor and another employee, in which Taylor gave the the employee the telephone number of the Charging Party in Charlotte. A meeting of interested em- 3 The testimony of all witnesses has been considered, which includes their demeanor while testifying. The absence of a statement of resolution of conflict in specific testimony, or of an analysis of such testimony, does not mean that such resolution or analysis was not made. See Bishop and Malco, Inc, d/b/a Walker's 159 NLRB 1159, 1161 (1966). 4 There is no issue as to the Board's jurisdiction, or the status of the Union as a labor organization As previously noted, the complaint alleges sufficient facts, which are admitted by answer, upon which I may, and do hereby, find that the Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the mean- mg of Sec 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec 2(5) of the Act 5 The record reflects that the National Labor Relations Board conducted an election among the employees in 1967, but the Union involved failed to receive a majority of the valid votes cast 217 NLRB No. 157 TELEDYNE-ALLVAC,_ INC. ployees was held at the Charging Party's office in Charlotte in early May, wherein authorization cards were distributed. Although Taylor did not attend such meeting, he did receive some authorization cards and he thereafter spoke to em- ployees about the Union in and about the plant and solicited employees to sign authorization cards after working hours in their homes. According to his testimony, which I credit, he received about six signed authorization cards prior to his discharge by the Respondent on June 6.6 Thereafter, Taylor distributed union literature at the Respondent's plant gate. It should be noted at the outset that the policy of the Company was vigorously opposed to the organizational efforts of the employees at the Monroe facility. In a letter to all em- ployees, dated June 18, the President of the Respondent stated that they should be aware that "the Company will use every legal and proper means in opposing this organizing attempt. We will not allow the Teamsters Union to gain total domination of our employees."' Daryl Hasty, the arc melt superintendent, after testifying to a conversation with an em- ployee (of which more anon), testified as follows with respect to this point: Q. You considered it your obligation to do everything you could to keep the union out of Teledyne, didn't you? A. I felt it was my duty to state the company's posi- tion. Q. And to do everything you could to keep the union out of Teledyne, wasn't that the company's position? A. That's right. Also, Foreman Harold Bradley testified that he reported to his superior concerning the events of a union meeting because he knew that "the Company was against the Union." Of course, the Respondent had every right under the law to maintain a position which did not favor the organizational efforts of its employees. However, counsel for the General Counsel maintains that some of the Respondent's supervisors overstepped legitimate bounds in stating the Company's posi- tion., thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. We come now to an examination of the evidence in this regard. B. Alleged Interference, Restraint, and Coercion 1. Interrogation The record reflects that, following the commencement of the union campaign in May, some of the Respondent's super- visors began a rather systematic interrogation of the em- ployees under their jurisdiction respecting the tatters' posi- tion and desires in the matter. Thus, employee Phillip Hernandez testified that in late May, Superintendent Gordon Tailllon approached him at his work station and asked him what he thought about the Union . Hernandez said that he didn't know anything about it. Hernandez further testified that in June, his forman James Preslar called each person in the department into his office, seriatim. When it became Her- nandez' turn, Preslar asked what Hernandez thought about the Union, to which the latter replied that he did not know 6 The discharge is alleged as discriminatory in the complaint , as discussed more fully, infra. 7 C C Exh. 2 887 anything about it. Preslar opined that he did not think that the Union would ever be successful in becoming the represen- tative of the employees at the Company. About a week later when Preslar was on vacation, James Efird, the second shift plant superintendent, was passing out paychecks and asked Hernandez what he thought about the Union. The latter did not respond, but Efird went on to say that the Union would never get into the Company and that the "wise thing for us to do is not to vote for it."' On June 12, (the day following the handbilling of the plant by Jerry Taylor, as previously noted), employee Neil Price, who had worked with Taylor in the raw materials depart- ment, was called into the office of Plant Superintendent McBride for the ostensible reason of discussing the possibility of Price's succeeding to Taylor's job. However, McBride quickly turned the subject matter of the conversation to the handbilling, and questioned Price as to whether he saw Tay- lor handing out union literature and if he had taken any. Price responded affirmatively. McBride then asked Price if he knew anything about the Union, to which Price responded in the negative. McBride went on to explain that it was the Team- sters Union out of Charlotte. When Price asked McBride whether he knew anything about that, the latter responded that all he knew was that the Union could not help the employees-that all it could do was to cause the employees to go on strike and direct them not to work if the Company did not meet its demands.9 McBride recalled a conversation with Price at about that 8 The following findings are based upon the credited testimony of Her- nandez who impressed me as an honest and candid witness, even though I have taken into consideration the fact that he was subsequently discharged by the Company and may hold a bias against it. At the same time I do not believe that he fabricated the conversations, and the circumstances and context of the situations as testified to by the respective supervisors does not ring true Thus Taillon admitted, to having a conversation with Hernandez in June wherein he asked Hernandez to sign a warning slip During that conversation, according to Taillon, Hernandez asked him what he thought about unions (Taillon denied that he asked Hernandez any question but lust answered Hernandez' questions). It would seem improbable in the context of Respondent's opposition to the Union that an employee would question the superintendent of a department on this matter at the time when the latter was giving the employee a warning slip for alleged misconduct Preslar admitted that he called everyone in his department into his office-and talked to them about the Union, expressing his opinion that he did not think that the Union would be successful in view of the benefits and wages that the Company was paying He conceded that sometime during the conversation he advised Hernandez to vote against the Union, and that he did not think that employees "would be any better off' by signing a union card. Preslar denied that he asked Hernandez the question "What do you think about the Union" As indicated, I credit Hernandez . But even assuming, arguendo, that Preslar did not interrogate Hernandez by use of that specific language, the record as a whole leads me to the conclusion that the whole purpose of the interview was to "sound out" the reactions of the employees to the Union's campaign, and to impress upon him the undesirability and futility of a sympathetic leaning toward the Union. Under these circumstances, such an interview, taking place in the sanctum of a supervisor's office, could only lead a fair-minded observer to conclude that "the interview was an attempt, by Respondent, to impede the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act " (N.LR B v Standard Container Co., 428 F.2d 793, 794 (C.A. 5, 1970), enfg 171 NLRB-433 (1968).) Efird testified that while passing out the checks on this occasion, he gave a little talk to each employee about the-good working conditions extant at the Company, and that he did not think that the employees "needed outside help." He denied asking Hernandez what he thought about the Union, and further denied that of the approximate 15 employees to whom he distributed paychecks, anyone said anything to him This seems quite improbable, and, as indicated, I credit Hernandez. 9 Testimony of Price. 888 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD time, but placed it on the receiving dock in the maintenance building. According to McBride, Price asked him about Tay- lor's job, and the superintendent gave him a brief description of what was involved. When Price appeared undetermined as to whether he could fulfill the position, McBride suggested that Price think it over and talk to Supervisor Lowery about it. Whereupon, according to McBride's testimony, Price asked him whether he knew that Taylor was passing out union literature. When McBride answered affirmatively, Price asked the identity of the Union, and McBride re- sponded that it was the Teamsters Union. I find it highly unlikely that the conversation would have occurred in the manner in which McBride testified. In the first place, I believe it unlikely that an employee , knowing the Company's policy as respects unions, would broach the sub- ject of unionization with the plant superintendent unless the employee had a purpose of making it appear to the superin- tendent that the employee was in sympathy with the Com- pany's position. However, McBride attributed no such state- ment to Price on this occasion . Secondly, since Price was a friend of Taylor's, he must have known by that time what union was involved, and therefore would not have questioned McBride on that point . Finally, it appears from the evidence above set forth, and from the record as whole, that it was the Company's policy to attempt to ascertain the employees' reactions to the union campaign . Since Price worked with Taylor, it would seem reasonable to infer that McBride would be interested in knowing the former's sympathies in that regard. Under all the circumstances , I credit Price and find that McBride's inquiry concerning the Union, made in his office, without justification or reassurance against recrimina- tion, constituted interference, restraint, and coercion within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.10 Several days later, on the back dock of the raw materials area, Price had a conversation with Daryl Hasty, superin- tendent of the arc melt department ., Hasty was in the area pursuant to instructions from Vic Lowery, the induction melt superintendent, who instructed Hasty to contact Neil Price who would show him some scrap that needed cleaning. After some perfunctory conversation relating to the material, Hasty asked Price had he read the union literature and whether Taylor had talked to him about it. When Price responded affimatively, Hasty asked Price what he thought about it, to which the latter replied that he had not decided one way or the other. Whereupon Hasty retorted that "he could tell [Price] right then and there that the Union could not help and that he should tell Taylor that." I find the foregoing statement by Hasty to constitute coer- cive interrogation, and therefore to be violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.11 10 See NLR.B v. Cameo, Inc., 340 F,2d 803 (C.A 5, 1965) 11 The foregoing findings are based upon the credited testimony of Price. Counsel for the General Counsel stated on the record that he was relying on the testimony solely for coercive interrogation under par. 7(b) of the complaint. Hasty denied interrogating Price stating that Price asked him what he thought about the Union I deem this improbable for substantially the same reasons stated above with respect to the Price -McBride conversa- tion. 2. Threats and coercion As previously noted, on June" 18, the Company sent all employees a letter that stated its opposition to the Union) Shortly thereafter, Sam Traywick, a scheduler in the melt shop, was called into the office of his supervisor, Mike Condor. Condor opened the conversation by saying that "everyone" was to talk to the people that worked with them about the letter that the Company sent, and stated that "you realize if the Union comes in here, you will lose your benefits." He then discussed some of the benefits such as holidays and vacations. Traywick knew that Condor's father worked for the railroad, and questioned Condor about how his-father would feel about the Union . The supervisor replied that he knew that unions helped "in places," but he didn't think that a union would help in the Company. Condor admitted calling Traywick into his office and ask- ing him whether he received the Company 's letter. Traywick acknowledged that he had. Whereupon, Condor admitted, on cross-examination, that he had "talked to all the employees (under his supervision) in the office" and asked them if they had received the letter, and how they felt about the Union. He further admitted that he stated to Traywick that "if the Union came into the Company , he could lose his benefits until the Company and the Union negotiated what terms or bene- fits the people would get . . ." Condor also said something about his father being a member of the union on the railroad and that most likely the railroad needed the union, but he did not think that the employees at the Company needed the Union. I find, based upon the foregoing, that Condor coercively interrogated an employee concerning his union activities in, violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act (N.L. R.B. v. Cameo, Inc., supra), and threatened him with loss of benefits should employees choose the Union as their collective-bargaining representative. 11 Traywick further testified to a conversation he had with Superintendent Taillon in the summer of 1974 as respects employee Phillip Hernandez. It was acknowledged that, by that time, it was known that Hernandez was an active propo- nent of the Union and, according to Traywick's testimony, Taillon opined that Hernandez had been sent there from iz The letter is not attacked as unlawful in the complaint 13 The foregoing findings are based upon the testimony of both partici- pants as respects the interrogation; it is based upon the, credited testimony of Traywick as respects the threat Unlike Traywick, Condor was not im- pressive as a witness: He was clearly reluctant to testify as to what he actually stated in the interview , admitting the interrogation only after vigor- ous cross-examination by counsel for the General Counsel , and in spite of attempted rehabilitation by counsel for the Respondent But even if credibil- ity be turned around, I would still find an unlawful threat based upon Condor's admitted statements Thus whether he said "could" or "would," the reasonable tendency of his language, in the context of the whole inter- view, was to impress upon Traywick the inevitability of loss of benefits by employees should they choose the Union as their collective -bargaining rep- resentative, even for the period of time during negotiations Such conduct clearly restrains the exercise of Section 7 rights See N.L.R B. v Standard Container Co., supra; see also Components, Inc., 197 NLRB 163 (1972) Although the interrogation was not alleged in the complaint , it was fully litigated, without objection by Respondent, and therefore may properly form the basis for a finding of violation. American Boiler Manufacturing Association. v NL.R.B., 366 F 2d 823, 825 (C.A 8, 1966), see also NLR.B v J. C. Penney Co, Inc., 384 F 2d 479 (C A 10, 1967) TELEDYNE-ALLVAC, INC Texas to organize for the Union; that- he, Taillon, felt that Hernandez was thereby "ruining his future in Monroe" by engaging in such activities because "no one would hire him after that-all the personnel departments knew one another in Monroe." I find, based upon the credited testimony of Traywick, that the above statement constituted an implied threat of blacklist for engaging in union activities.", 3. Impression of surveillance In the late afternoon of June 5, there was a union meeting on the shore of a lake near Monroe. Employee James Claxton Baucom attended the meeting, and had a conversation con- cerning it with his foreman, Harold Brantley, the following morning at work. According to Baucorn's testimony, Brant- ley asked how the meeting went, to which Baucom responded that there were very few employees in attendance. Brantley said[, "Jerry Taylor was there, wasn't he?" Baucom replied, "Not when I was there. If he was there, it was either before or after I was." Brantley then stated that he was aware that Baucom was at the meeting since "our cars had been seen there," mentioning the names of employees Ricky Helms and Neil Price. Brantley acknowledged having the conversation with Ban- corn stating that it occurred during a coffeebreak. According to Brantley, Claxton volunteered that the employees "had a union meeting at Lake Lee yesterday [and] there wasn't very many there; he mentioned Neil Price and Ricky Helms, and said that Jerry Taylor had been there and left when he got there." Brantley did not recall making any comment during the conversation. It is not deemed necessary to resolve the particular credi- bility issue for the purpose of deciding the question of the violation since, even if Baucom's testimony be credited, I do not view the circumstances to be such as would constitute an impression of surveillance in the particular circumstances of this case. Thus, Baucom testified that there was no secrecy about the union meeting because it was "talked all over the plant." The meeting itself was held in an open area approxi- mately 100 yards from a state highway, so that any passer-by could observe it, Moreover, the record shows that Baucom and Brantley had known each other for many years, and Brantley testified that Baucom had reported on the union activities of fellow employees on other occasions years ago. Under these circumstances, I find that the conversation did not carry with any overtones of "employer omniscience" or threat of reprisal, and I will therefore recommend that this allegation of the complaint be dismissed.ts C. The Alleged Discriminatory Discharge of Jerry Taylor Prior to his discharge on June 6, Taylor had worked for the Company in the raw materials area since February 1966. During the first approximately 7-1/2 years of his employ- ment, Taylor performed all the functions of an employee in that deaprtment which included loading and unloading trucks, cleaning scrap materials, weighing out "heats,"16 14 Taillon admitted having a conversation with Traywick concerning Her- nandez, but denied making the statement attributed to him. Such denial is not credited. - 15 See William L Bonnell Company, Inc., 170 NLRB 204 (1968) 889 keeping the bins of material orderly, and keeping the area clean. In addition, there was a small office where one em- ployee normally performed some paper work in connection with keeping an inventory record of the materials utilized. In August 1973, Taylor was promoted to "work leader"-of the department. This meant that he had authority to give certain directions and instructions to the other four employees in the department respecting their work.17 At the time of such promotion, Taylor received an increase in pay, but remained on an hourly rate. He continued to perform the same manual functions that he did previously, but apparently spent more time in directing the other employees, particularly in the training of a new girl in the operation of a computer which was installed for the purpose of assisting in the paperwork. The parties are at odds as to the proficiency with which Taylor performed his job as work leader. Taylor testified that he received only two written warnings concerning his job performance during his whole tenure of employment with the Company. The first was given about five years ago by his then supervisor John Troutman," which was, of course, prior to his promotion to work leader. The second was given to him by Lowery on May 28. This was occasioned by the fact that two or three thousand pounds of nickel was omitted from a "heat," which resulted in the loss of five hours melting time in the furnaces. This, according to Taylor, was the only warn- ing or reprimand that he received during his tenure as work leader. On the other hand, Respondent contends, in essence, that Taylor never satisfactorily performed the job as work leader. Thus, Lowery testified that in December 1973, he had a "counselling session" with Taylor which was occasioned by the latter's "failure to progress toward meeting job require- ments of leadman."19 At that time, according to Lowery's testimony, he went over with Taylor the requirements of the position as described in the "job description" of work leader (Resp. Exh. 7), and told Taylor the following (as was memori- alized by Lowery's memorandum following the session): Employee was told that he had made insufficient pro- gress toward meeting his total job requirements as a leadman. Supervisory aspects of job were emphasized and pointed out as necessary to fulfill job requirements. I have cautioned this employee of the necessity for ac- curacy, careful planning, and constant attention to all that goes on in weighing out heats. We have lost several heats due to heat-sheet calculation errors that would have been caught if Jerry had checked more closely. I have found mixed scrap in many heats that were weighed out ready to charge into furnace that would have been caught if Jerry had been performing his job of 16 A "heat" consists of several cans of material, presumably combined according to chemical formulae, which are prepared by employees of the raw materials department for delivery into the induction melt department, where they are placed in high temperature furnaces for processing 17 See Resp Exh. 7, the Respondent contends that the position was supervisory within the meaning of Sec 2(11) of the Act, of which more anon. is Troutman is no longer employed by the Company, his place having been taken by Vic Lowery, Taylor's immediate supervisor at the time of his promotion to work leader and'at the time of his discharge. 19 Resp. Exh. 6 ,890 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD checking the work of the other employees under his leadership. I don't know if Jerry will ever be able to organize himself to fulfill the total Job requirements .20 I Although Lowery testified that he did not consider this "counselling session" as a "warning," I note that the memo- randum was written on a form customarily used for issuing written warnings. Also, Lowery conceded that he never showed the memorandum to Taylor, nor requested him to sign it, although there is a space on the memorandum for the "signature of employee" acknowledging his understanding of the "nature of my offense."21 Taylor did not recall any con- versation with Lowery about this time concerning his per- formance as work leader. Plant Superintendent McBride testified that he had a "seri- ous talk" with Taylor in the latter part of 1973 in the raw materials building for the purpose of making sure that "Jerry understood- the full responsibilities of his job." Taylor re- called a conversation with McBride at about this time, in which the latter pointed out some pieces of alloy in the aisles and mentioned the necessity for identifying materials. How- ever, there is no evidence or claim or warning or other disci- plinary action from this conversation. On March 6, following a routine audit of the raw materials area by one of the Respondent's customers, the president of Respondent sent Lowery a memorandum which set forth five enumerated violations of standard procedure for maintaining proper housekeeping in the raw materials area (Resp. Exh. 2). Lowery testified that following receipt of this memorandum, he had a group meeting of employees in the raw materials department concerning it. However, there was no discipline imposed upon any of the employees at that time. On May 8, according to Lowery's testimony, the latter called Taylor into his office for the purpose of having a dis- cussion with him and giving him a reprimand. According to the memorandum which was subsequently filed by Lowery, he told Taylor that the latter was failing "to meet total job requirements and responsibilities and inefficiency [sic] ... employees' job was reviewed. He was told to do a more efficient and complete job and was informed that failure to do so might result in his dismissal. He was told to work more on the supervisory requirements of his job." (Resp. Exh. 8). Lowery referred to the foregoing as a "written record of a verbal reprimand," but, again, admittedly failed to show it to Taylor or to have Taylor sign the memorandum although there is a space on the document for the signature of the employee. Taylor denied knowledge of any such reprimand. In latter May, according to the testimony of Lowery and Blake Hudson, vice president of manufacturing, the latter -reprimanded Lowery for falling to improve the conditions in the raw materials department. Lowery promised to do all that he could to straighten out the problems. 20 Statement as continued on back of the memorandum (Resp. Exh. 6 ) 21 There are two spaces on the memorandum where the writer is requested to insert a date In both places an Resp. Exh 6, the date inserted is "12/18/73", however, in both places the number "3" is written over another writing which appears to be the number "4." At one point in his cross- examination of Lowery, counsel for the General Counsel appeared to take the position that Lowery had been accustomed to writing "1974" rather than "1973," and that, perhaps, it could be contended that this memoran- dum was not written contemporaneously with the interview in December 1973, but later. However, he did not pursue this contention On June 3, Lowery issued a written reprimand to Taylor for "carelessness in weighing out material for heat No. 9504," on May 29 (Resp. Exh. 9). This was the reprimand previously referred to by Taylor in which it was conceded that approxi- mately 2,000 pounds of nickle was omitted from the "heat," which resulted in approximately 5 hours extra processing time. According to the memorandum, the warning issued was "employee was warned that carelessness of this nature can- not be tolerated."22 On the morning of Thursday, June 6, Taylor went to work as usual at approximately 6:45 a.m. (work officially com- menced at 7 a.m.). The first thing was to remedy a situation in which a heat was "out of chemistry." Taylor met with Lowery concerning the matter after which Taylor weighed out approximately 500 more pounds of material to add to the heat. According to Lowery's testimony, he spent the first 15 or 20 minutes after 7 a.m. going over with Taylor the schedul- ing for the day and "getting him started." Lowery noticed during that time that the "heat" the employees were working on was not covered .21 Following the discussion with Lowery, Taylor commenced weighing out the materials, and Lowery went into the induc- tion melt department. Shortly thereafter, prior to 8 a.m., Plant Superintendent McBride approached Lowery and asked him to accompany McBride to the raw materials area. McBride was mad. He claimed that the raw materials depart- ment was a mess and that he was "damn tired of talking," and asked Lowery when he was going to clean the "damn mess up." Lowery responded that "he would do it."24 Lowery testified that during his conversation with McBride, he noticed Taylor, Price and Helms "standing about 10 feet from the raw matenals office, and they were laughing and cutting up about something, and it just ran all over me; and I knew right then that the only way that I was ever going to get it straightened out was to get rid of Jerry Taylor; and so, I called Jerry Taylor over; I told him, `Jerry, get your stuff, I'm going to have to let you go.' " Lowery further testified that he pointed to the heat being uncovered and materials being scattered, and then walked Taylor over to where the latter punched the timeclock; they then went to the credit union for Taylor to get his savings out. He then walked Taylor to the latter's car, and during that time there was some conversation. Lowery testified: 22 It is noted that this exhibit reflects that Taylor had been reprimanded on two occasions previously, whereas on the May 8 memorandum (written record of oral reprimand), it was stated that Taylor had not been repri- manded previously Yet, there is no indication in the record of any repri- mand between the two dates 23 The record shows that after the employees in the raw materials area had prepared a "heat" for processing, the "heat" should properly be left in the raw materials area , covered with a sheet of polyethylene plastic , until it is picked up by employees from the induction melt department to be inserted in one of the furnaces It is apparently not improper, or outside of standard operating procedure, for a heat to be uncovered during the time that the induction melt employees are securing and transferring the "heat" from the raw materials area to the induction melt area (which are adjacent to each other) 24 Testimony of McBride, which was substantially corroborated by Low- ery No one else heard the conversation McBride testified that earlier that morning he had taken a tour through the raw materials department and found it in a state of disarray; i.e , that materials and containers were lying on the floor, nickel was spilled on the floor, etc - TELEDYNE-ALLVAC, INC. He asked me why was he being fired, and I told him, "Jerry, you have been talking with the wrong people too much. It is interfering with your job. You are not getting your job done, and that's the reason you are being fired." Taylor's testimony with respect to his conversation with Lowery is substantially similar to the above, except that after Lowery made the remark about Taylor's talking with the "wrong people," Taylor asked Lowery to identify them. Low- ery replied that he did not have to state names because "as smart a fellow as [Taylor] was, he figured [Taylor] would wise up because they wasn't [sic] going to put up with it."25 Lowery testified that after Taylor left, he returned to the raw materials department and called the other employees into the office and told them why Taylor had been ter- minated, and put them back to work.26 Lowery denied that he knew at the time of Taylor's dis- charge that the latter was involved in union activities. Later that morning (June 6), however, according to Lowery's tes- timony, he had a conversation with Foreman Harold Brant- ley at or about 10 a.m. It appears that Lowery was passing through the induction melt shop when Brantley called him over and said there was something he wanted to tell Lowery about-that he had "some information on a union meeting the clay before." Lowery continued: Q. Just tell me what the conversation was. A. He named Neil Price, Ricky Helms, a,boy from the Finishing Department, and the fellow that gave him the information, Claxton Baucom. Q. Did he mention Mr. Taylor? A. He said Jerry might have been there. I didn't know that that was material .27 D. Analysis and Concluding Findings Respondent denies that Taylor's union activities played any part in his discharge. Rather, it asserts that Taylor's derelictions as a work leader provided ample and just cause for the discharge, and, moreover, the officials of Respondent were unaware at the time of the union activities or Taylor's participation in them. Finally, Respondent contends that, in any event, Taylor was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act and therefore his termination was not protected there- under. I find lack of substantial evidence on the record to support these assertions, and therefore reject them. 25 Credited testimony of Taylor Lowery acknowledged that on this occa- sion he told Taylor that "you have been keeping company with the wrong people," but denied responding to Taylor's question with the words "You know I don't have to tell you." Rather, Lowery testified that he told Taylor who they were "truckdrivers, people from other departments he had no business talking with It was something I had warned him about in times gone by." However, I note that in the memoranda of warnings and counsel- ing sessions referred to above, Lowery made no mention of Taylor's talking to "truckdrivers and people from other departments he had no business talking with." 26 I note that at no time did Lowery reprimand or discipline Price or Helms because they were "standing around talking and laughing" and not performing work 27 Brantley confirmed Lowery's testimony, and averred he told Lowery about the union meeting because Lowery was his boss and he knew that the Company was against the Union. Interestingly enough, Lowery did not advise Brantley at that time that he had just terminated Taylor. 891 As to the issue of company knowledge of Taylor's union proclivities, it is true that there is no direct evidence in the record that the company officials responsible for the termina- tion knew prior thereto of Taylor's activities in this regard. But in Wiese Plow Welding Company, Inc.," the Board stated: We disagree with the Trial Examiner that direct knowl- edge of an employee's concerted or union activities is a sine qua non for fmding that he has been discharged because of such activities. On the contrary, there is well established Board and court precedent that such knowl- edge may be inferred from the record as a whole (citing cases). See also F W Woolworth Company v. N..L.R.B.,29 where the court stated: Petitioner [Woolworth] attacks the Board's fmding because there was no positive proof that it knew which of its employees were, and which were not, members of the Union. Implicit in Petitioner's argument is a basic objection to reliance upon so-called "circumstantial evidence." But courts and other triers of facts, in a multitude of cases, must rely upon such evidence, i.e. inferences from tes- timony as to attitudes, acts and deeds; where-such mat- ters as purpose, plans, designs, motives, intent, or similar matters, are involved, the use of such inferences is often indispensable. The record herein provides substantial, evidence from which I may reasonably infer that Lowery and/or McBride" were, contrary to their testimony, aware of the union campaign and Taylor's participation in it prior to his termination. Thus, the statement made by Lowery at the time of the discharge-that Taylor had been talking with the "wrong people" too much-refers, in my view, to union acti- vists and not to the persons Lowery claimed he meant such as truckdrivers and persons from other departments in the plant3' This because it was clearly part of Taylor's job to contact and talk with truckdrivers as they loaded and un- loaded trucks in the raw materials department, and as he ordered materials from the purchasing department, and as he discussed scheduling work with the production control 28 123 NLRB 616 (1959). 29 121 F 2d 658, 660 (C.A. 2, 1941) 30 Although Lowery testified that he alone made the decision to terminate Taylor, I am not convinced that this is the case, as more fully discussed, infra. The fact that Lowery's testimony is not contradicted on this point does not require me to believe it See N.L.R B. v. Howell Chevrolet Com- pany, 204 F 2d 79, 86 (C A. 9). 31 See e.g, Angwell Curtain Co v. N.L.R.B.,192 F.2d 899 (C.A. 7), where the court held that the Board was warranted in inferring that the company official's reference to "this thing" meant the umon organizational drive. Hence, as in that case, "it is not an unreasonable inference that in a small plant in a relatively small community news of the intense union organiza- tional drive came quickly to the attention of plant officers " Indeed, McBride admitted that he had heard of the campaign "through the grape- vine" but that his first knowledge of it was when he observed Taylor leaflet- ting the plant subsequent to his discharge. In this connection, McBride told employee Collen Griffin, in a conversation which took place on the day-after Taylor passed out the handbills, that he "thought" Jerry was involved with the union, and after seeing him out there handing out union handbills, he knew for sure he was involved. (Credited testimony of Griffin ) 892 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD department. As previously noted, in none of the previous counselling sessions and other instances wherein Lowery claimed he criticized Taylor's work did it ever appear that his type of conduct was ever cited as a deficiency. , Furthermore, I find, based upon the testimony of Claxton Baucom, that Respondent's officials were aware prior to Tay- lor's discharge, of the union meeting which took place on June 5, and which it was believed or suspected that Jerry Taylor had attended.32 It will be recalled that Foreman Harold Brantley testified that the following morning Baucom reported to him concerning the meeting and mentioned that "Neil Price and Richy Helms [were there] and that Jerry had been there and left when he (Baucom) got there."33 How- ever the record reflects that"Baucom became somewhat con- fused and uncertain as to the exact time he reported this information to Brantley on the morning of June 6. Thus, in his direct examination as a witness for the General Counsel, BaiIcom testified that he could not "recall the exact time." but believed that the conversation with Brantley took place around "breaktime, i.e., 9 a.m." However, in his prehearing affidavit (which was taken on October 17), he stated as fol- lows: The next morning first thing no more than 30 minutes after I got to work, the shift starts at 7 o'clock, and I got there 15 minutes ahead of time; and so this conversation would have been at about 7:15; Brantley came to the tank where I was working, and asked me how the meet- ing went. Baucorn further testified that on the Sunday prior to the trial (October 20) he reviewed his affidavit with counsel for the General Counsel at about 5:30 p.m. At that time he did not advise counsel for the General Counsel of any change in his testimony, but testified herein that he commenced to "think and start studying about exactly what was said and where it was said, "and" recall[ed] that it did occur in the break area at 9 a.m." Baucom further testified that while at work on Monday morning, October 21, he was called into the office at the plant and there interviewed by Respondent's counsel and its industrial relations manager concerning the testimony that he was to give in this proceeding.34 Finally, Baucom testified that "it is possible" that the conversation between him and Brantley did occur at the melt tank on the morning of June 6 at 7:15. Under the circumstances as outlined above, I am con- vinced, and therefore find, that the conversation between Brantley and Baucom did, in fact, occur at the time,and place that Baucom first testified that it did, i.e., at the melt tank at or about 7:15 a.m. on the morning of June 6; that thereafter this information was transmitted to other of Respondent's officials, including Plant Superintendent McBride; that it was 32 The fact is, of course, that Taylor did not attend such meeting. Indeed, he did not attend any union meetings prior to his discharge, because, as he testified, Price and Helms advised that "somebody would tell on him be- cause he was a work leader." Of course, thelegal consequences remain the same whether or not he, in fact, attended-the meeting if Respondent be- lieved that he did 33 Lowery also testified that in his conversation with Brantley, the latter stated that Baucom told him (Brantley) that "Jerry might have been there He did.not know that Jerry was there " 34 Baucom had been supenaed to appear at the hearing, and he advised his superior, Brantley, of that fact on Friday evening, October 18. this information-and not any particular dereliction in Tay- lor's work proficiency that day-which aroused McBride's anger, and which precipitated the decision to discharge Tay- lor. I believe this conclusion is amply supported by the evi- dence including, particularly, the failure of Lowery, who had been with Taylor in the raw materials department that morn- ing for 15 or 20 minutes prior to 8 a.m., to make mention of any disarray in the area or uncovering of the heat, which he admittedly noticed, and about which he said nothing because it was, at the time, in the process of being transferred,to the induction melt department. Had the condition of the raw ma- terials department been in as bad a state of disarray as McBride pictured it, I have no doubt that Lowery would have said something to Taylor about it that morning. Indeed, it seems surprising that McBride made no mention of the situation to Taylor. When asked why he did not, McBride testified that he preferred to take such matters through proper supervisory channels. However, I note that McBride did not let such a formality stand in his way in December 1973, when he had a "serious talk" with Taylor concerning the latter's work performance as a work leader. Accordingly, I am inclined to disbelieve the testimony that it was Lowery's decision to terminate Taylor; rather, I am con- vinced and therefore find that it was the decision of McBride, but that Lowery took the onus since it would have appeared suspect for McBride to have dictated the action." In reaching this conclusion I have also considered the fact that Lowery did not admonish, discipline, or caution the other two employees with whom Taylor was allegedly cavort- ing that morning. I have also considered the discrepancy in the testimony of Lowery and McBride: McBride testified that he took Lowery around the area pointing out the disarray of material and that the only time he and Lowery stopped and stood together was at the back exit to the building and was "as far away as you can get from the [raw materials storage] office and still be in the building." Yet Taylor and Lowery testified that Lowery's conversation with McBride took place near the raw materials office. In addition, I fmd it difficult to believe that Taylor's name was not mentioned in the conversation even though Lowery observed him laugh- ing and talking, and it was at that point that Lowery sup- posedly reached the decision to discharge. Finally, I have considered that if Taylor's performance as a work leader was as poor as Lowery sought to picture it, for as long a time as he testified, he would have imposed a sterner discipline for the May 28 dereliction than a mere written warning. It will be recalled that it was only several weeks before, according to Lowery's testimony, that he had "ver- bally warned" Taylor about these deficiencies. I am inclined to believe Taylor's testimony that he received no such warn- ing, or such counseling session, particularly in the absence of Lowery's showing to him the written memoranda which were proffered into evidence at the trial. Under all circumstances, I am convinced and therefore find that the reasons cited by the Respondent for the dis- charge were a pretext, and that the real reason for the term'i- 35 I note, in this connection that in the 3-1/2 years that he had been supervisor in the melt induction department, Lowery had never discharged anyone for not performing the job properly TELEDYNE-ALLVAC, INC. nation of Taylor was his active participation in- the union activities, to which Respondent was unalterably opposed. There remains for consideration Respondent's contention that. Taylor was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, and therefore is not entitled to its protection.36 I find that substantial evidence on the record does not support Respon- dent's contention in this regard, and I therefore reject it. In the first place, this contention itself is apparently an afterthought, 37 since it appears from the testimony that Re- spondent's officials did not consider Taylor one who pos- sessed requisite supervisory authority. Thus, the record shows that work leaders voted in the 1967 Board election, and there is not evidence that their supervisory status was ele- vated from that time until 1974; that Respondent's supervi- sory hierarchy included persons who were designated as "foremen" who, unlike work leaders, were salaried, had designated parking spaces "inside the fence"; attended meet- ings of supervisory personnel, and, in general, had "full au- thority to hire and fire people."38 Indeed, the evidence shows that Lowery did not consider Taylor's status to be a supervisor. He testified that in the "counseling session" that he had with Taylor in December 1973, he went over those things that Taylor was responsible for as a work leader and pointed out those areas that needed improving upon. In the course of the discussion, Lowery said, "Jerry, we have got to make some improvements in those areas if you are ever going to be a supervisor . . . All I remember telling him was that he was going to have to make some definite improvements in the way he ran the raw materials storage area, if he was ever going to be supervisory material; if he was ever going to be made foreman." Secondly, the record shows that there was no substantial increase in authority given Taylor at the time of his promo- tion to work leader than existed prior thereto. Taylor, having been an employee in that department since 1966, was clearly the oldest and most experienced employee in the functions of the department. It would naturally follow that the younger employees would look to him for direction and assistance in performing their work and in solving their problems, and Taylor assumed this posture even before his promotion to work leader.39 After his promotion, he was apparently given more responsibility with respect to getting out the work of the 36 A supervisor is defined in Sec 2 (11) of the Act as follows: The term "supervisor" means any individual having authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, pro- mote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or re- sponsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend such action, if in connection with the foregoing the exer- cise of such authonty is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment 37 Counsel for the Respondent announced at the commencement of the trial that he had "apprised Mr Carson last week that [he] discovered in the course of [his] investigation that we would probably assert that [defense] 38 'Lowery testified that when Respondent replaced Taylor with a foreman in the raw materials department, they did so because they wanted a person "to have full authority to hire and fire people, and to run the whole show." 39 Significantly, there is no language contained in the job description of "Work Leader" (Resp. Exh. 7) upon which a fact finder could fairly predi- cate a conclusion that such a person possessed or exercised supervisory authority as contemplated by the statute. 893 department but the only authority enumerated by Lowery as given to Taylor with respect to his relationship with other employees in the department was to allow them to go home if it was necessary.40 Lowery testified as follows on this point: Q. Now how long a conversation did you have with him when you informed him of his promotion, approxi- mately how long did it last? A. It didn't last very long. I just told Jerry that he had been promoted to work leader, told him a few of the things that I was going to expect him to do. Q. What did you tell him in that regard? A. I told him that I was going to expect him to direct the full work in the raw materials area to make sure that all the heat sheets were calculated properly; to make sure that all materials, were received and identified properly, to make sure that the area stayed in a neat and orderly condition. Q. What else, if anything, did you tell him? A. Well, I just told him basically he was in charge of the raw materials department in my absence. I told him if I couldn't be found, and somebody had a problem, if they needed to go home or something, that he had the authority to let them go home. I told him if people had any problems and came to him with them, if he couldn't handle them, to see me about it. Q. What else, if anything, did you tell him? A. I told him he would not have the power to hire or fire anybody; he would not have the authority to repri- mand anybody; if he felt somebody needed some coun- seling, or a reprimand, or anything like that, that I would do whatever had to be done based on his judg- ment and what he told me. * * * * * Q. Now with this increase in responsibility, that being his, that you now held him responsible but actually what he did didn't change; what additional authority was he granted? A. He was granted the authority to let people go home on his own, if it was necessary. Q. Is that all? A. If he felt that it was necessary. He was granted the authority to do the job between him and other supervi- sors or between him and supervisors of other depart- ments, call on them if there was a scrap mix-up rather than come to me, call them directly and ask them to straigthen it out. Q. Hadn't he been doing that before he was classified as a working leader? A. I don't think so. Q. You don't think so? You know that he had been, don't you, W. Lowery? A. I know that he had called me on a lot of instances to straighten out scrap mixes and after I made him a working leader, I told him to call them; "Don't call me, dust go ahead and -call them." Q. You told him to call them? A. Yes. 40 The record shows that he exercised this authority on one occasion. 894 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Q. And sometimes before he had been calling them anyway, right? A. I guess he had. There can be no question but that Taylor, as a work leader, possessed and exercised some degree of authority, direction, and control of the four employees with whom he worked in the raw materials department 41 However, the record shows that Superintendent Lowery regularly came into the depart- ment in the morning and stayed for an average of an hour or two at which time he went over with Taylor the work schedule for the day and any other problems incident thereto. Except when he was on vacation, Lowery was always present in the induction melt department, which was adjacent to the raw materials area, for consultation with Taylor; Taylor's duties, therefore, were essentially to carry out the policies and directives given him by Lowery. In so-doing, there was little if any need for the exercise of independent judgment. That is to say, the materials to be inserted in the heats were predeter- mined; the other work was more or less of a casual or perfunc- tory nature such as cleaning up, loading and unloading trucks, cleaning scrap, etc., all of which required little exer- cise of direction on the part of Taylor, and in which he performed manual labor himself. The job requiring perhaps most "expertise" was in the paper work performed by a female employee in the raw materials office. Taylor was in the process of training this employee at the time he was dis- charged. However, here again, there is no showing that the operation of this machine, which was essentially used for the purpose of calculating heats, and keeping inventory and pro- duction records, was other than a routine and clerical opera- tion. In sum, I am convinced and therefore find that the duties of Taylor to the extent that they included the direction and control of other employees who worked with him in the raw materials department, was such as a "straw boss" or "lead- man," which were "not intended to be excluded from the coverage of the Act."42 Rather I find that the record reflects that Taylor was "merely a superior workman or a leadman who exercised the control of a skilled worker over less capable employees."43 II THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth above, occurring in connection with the interstate operations of Respondent, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, 41 Respondent contends that Taylor "effectively recommended" that Shirley Helms and Joe Wright received pay increases. However, Lowery testified that the raises were "basically automatic" but subject to a veto; that, moreover, Helms received the raise even though Taylor apparently did not "recommend" it, i.e., he told Lowery, that "she had a lot of room for im- provement " 42 N.L.R.B. v. Quincy Steel Casting Company, 200 F.2d 293, 296 (C A. 1), see also Salant Corporation d/b/a Carrizo Manufacturing Company, Inc., 214 NLRB No. 21 (1974); Becker County Sand and Gravel Company, 157 NLRB 557, 567-571, enfd. 373 F 2d 528 (C.A. 4, 1976). 43 NL R.B. v Southern Bleachery & Print Works, Inc., 257 F 2d 235, 239 (C A. 4, 1958). In a recent case (Crest Chemical Company, 213 NLRB No. 118 (1974)) a panel majority of the Board found a "leaderperson," who was traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes, burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. 3. By coercively interrogating employees concerning their union activities, and by threatening employees with loss of benefits or other reprisals if they selected the Union as their collective-bargaining representative, the Respondent has in- terfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exer- cise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. By discharging its employee, Jerry Sam Taylor, in order to discourage membership in the Union, Respondent had engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It having been found that the Respondent unlawfully dis- charged Jerry Sam Taylor, it is recommended that Respond- ent offer said employee immediate and full reinstatement to his former position or, if such position no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of earnings that he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him. Any backpay found to be due shall be computed in accordance with the formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). As the unfair labor practices committed by Respondent strike at the very heart of employee rights safeguarded by the Act, I shall recommend that Respondent be placed under a broad order to cease and desist from in any manner infringing on the rights of employees guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.44 salaried and possessed greater authority than Taylor, not to be a supervisor, as defined in the Act. See also Paoli Chair Company, Inc, 213 NLRB No 121 (1974). 44 NL RB. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F 2d 532, 536 (C.A. 4) TELEDYNE-ALLVAC, INC. 895 Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)-of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER45 The Respondent, Teledyne Allvac, Inc., Monroe, North Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 71, Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor organization, by discharging or otherwise discriminating against employees because of their union membership or activities. (b) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their union membership or activities. (c) Threatening employees with loss of benefits or other reprisals should they join or assist the above-named Union or select it as their collective-bargaining representative. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self- organization, to form, join, or assist the above-named labor organization, or any other labor organization, to bargain col- lectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collec- tive bargaining or other mutal aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities. - 2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Jerry Sam Taylor immediate and full reinstate- ment to his former job, or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to se- niority or other rights or privileges, and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, person- nel records and reports, and all records necessary and rele- vant to analyze and compute the amount of backpay due under this recommended Order. (c) Post at its Monroe, North Carolina, plant copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 11, after being duly signed by the Company's authorized repre- 4iI 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 which follows herein shall, as pro- vided in Sec 102.48 of those 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 116 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 " sentative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Company to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 11, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. - IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dis- missed in all other respects. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board, after a hearing in which all parties were permitted to introduce evidence, found that we discharged Jerry Sam Taylor unlawfully and that by his discharge we discouraged our employees from engaging in concerted activities and from becoming members of Driv- ers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 71, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor organization. WE WILL offer the above-named employee his former job or, if his job no longer exists, a substantially equivalent position and will restore his seniority. WE WILL pay him any backpay he has lost because we discharged him. WE WILL NOT unlawfully discharge employees for law- fully engaging in union activities or protected concerted activities. WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate employees with respect to their union or concerted activities. WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of benefits or other reprisals if they engage in activities on behalf of the above-named union, or any other labor organization. The laws of the United States give all employees these rights: To organize themselves To form, join or help unions To bargain as a group through representatives they choose To act together for collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection To refuse to do any or all of these things. All of our employees are free to remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining, members of a labor organization. TELEDYNE-ALLVAC, INC.