National Utility Products Co.

64 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD National Utility Products Company and Gary R. Kun- zen. Case 8-CA-8688 August 29, 1975 DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On April 30, 1975, Administrative Law Judge Wal- ter H. Maloney, Jr., issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed ex- ceptions and a supporting brief. The Respondent also filed a motion for oral argument. 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 brief ' 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, National Utility Prod- ucts Company, Westlake, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. 1 We deny the Respondent's motion for oral argument since the excep- tions and brief adequately set forth the position of the Respondent 2 The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to over- rule an Administrative Law Judge 's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544 ( 1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C.A 3, 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his credibility findings. 3 The Administrative Law Judge found that the Respondent, through its vice president, James F. Jefferies , violated Sec . 8(a)(1) of the Act by promis- ing benefits to individual employees in order to dissaude them from engag- ing in union activities In adopting this finding we also note that several days after making these promises Jefferies and President Harold Bowman addressed a gathering of the employees at which time Bowman expressed anger at the employees for going to the Union Both officers stated that the Respondent would not move forward with fringe benefits then under con- sideration because of the advent of the employees' union activities. Coupled with Jefferies' earlier statements to Charles Salnajs and Gary Kunzen, we find that these remarks clearly conveyed to the employees the impression that certain fringe benefits were being considered, and that, but for the employees' union activities, such plans for additional benefits would have been further developed, and perhaps even finalized The withholding or conditioning of benefits because of the employees ' protected concerted ac- tivities, or implications that this is being done, is clearly destructive of their Sec 7 nght to engage in such activities. DECISION FINDINGS OF FACT STATEMENT OF THE CASE WALTER H . MALONEY, JR., Administrative Law Judge: This case came on for hearing before me at Cleveland, Ohio, upon a complaint' issued by the Regional Director for Region 8, which alleges that the Respondent National Utility Products Company 2 (sometimes called NUPCO) violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Re- lations Act, as amended . More specifically , the complaint alleges that the Respondent unlawfully interrogated em- ployees concerning their union activities ; threatened em- ployees with reprisal if they engaged in union activities; made promises of benefit to employees if they refrained from engaging in union activities ; and, on June 25, 1975, discriminatorily discharged Charging Party Gary R. Kun- zen and employees Charles Salnajs, Charles Sanner, and John Knight because they supported an organizing drive conducted on behalf of the Union. The Respondent denies the allegations that it engaged in independent violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and claims that it laid off the employees here in question , and one other employee not named in the complaint, because of a decline in sales. Upon these contentions, the issues herein were joined.' A. Outline of Events in Question Respondent manufactures adjustable metal risers into which manhole covers fit. It purchases raw metal castings, usually in four pieces, and then processes and assembles the pieces for shipment. Its customers are, for the most part, municipalities, public utilities, and paving companies, which use the finished product in paving streets and road- ways. Respondent's production is somewhat seasonal. It does not produce adjustable risers strictly to order, but ac- cumulates an inventory in the first months of the year to anticipate the construction season which normally begins in April. However, production usually continues through- out the year. Its normal complement of employees has been approximately 10 in number. From time to time Re- 1 The principal docket entries in this case are as follows Charge filed herein on October 22, 1974, by Gary R. Kunzen and amended charge filed on December 4, 1974; complaint issued on December 10, 1974; Respondent's answer filed on December 13, 1974; hearing held in Cleve- land, Ohio, on February 4, 5, and 6 , 1975; briefs filed by the General Coun- sel and the Respondent with me on March 3, 1975. 2 Respondent admits, and I find, that it is an Ohio Corporation, which maintains its principal place of business in Westlake , Ohio, a suburb of Cleveland, where it is engaged in the production of adjustable risers which support manhole covers. In the preceding 12-month period, a representative period, Respondent purchased and received at its Westlake , Ohio, plant, from points and places outside the State of Ohio, goods valued in excess of $50,000. Accordingly, it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec. 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. I also find that Local 415, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America (herein called Union), is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec. 2(5) of the Act. 3 Certain errors in the transcript have been noted and corrected. 220 NLRB No. 15 NATIONAL UTILITY PRODUCTS COMPANY 65 spondent has used a night shift, but this practice has varied depending upon the amount of production required. Until June 25, 1974, and the events here in question, Respondent never had a layoff of personnel. Late in May or early in June 1974, several of Respondent's production and maintenance employees be- gan discussing among themselves the desirability of orga- nizing. Informal conversations took place in the lunchroom of the plant during lunchbreaks. One or more such discus- sions took place at McKay's Tavern, a nearby bar. They informally selected Charles Salnajs, one of their number, to make inquiry of Teamsters Local 415 as to the procedure and desirability of joining a union. Early in June, C. Sal- najs phoned Dennis Francis , president of Local 415, and informed him of the interest of Respondent's employees. Francis was preoccupied at the time with a strike involving another employer, but, on the day of C. Salnajs' phone call, took time out from these other facets of union business to drive from the union office in the central part of Cleveland to Respondent's plant in the southwest suburbs in order to meet with C. Salnajs. He arrived at the plant about lunch- time, parked in the rear of the plant, and asked at the rear door of the plant for C. Salnajs. In fact, Francis spoke on this occasion with Michael Irelan, Respondent's day fore- man, although he did not disclose to Irelan his identity or the nature of his business. Irelan summoned C. Salnajs, who was in the lunchroom, and Salnajs had a meeting in the parking lot with Francis. Irelan admits watching this meeting throughout the course of Francis' visit and of reporting Francis' presence to the front office, but denies knowledge at that time that the visit had anything to do with unionization. C. Salnajs obtained designation cards from Francis, came back into the plant, gave them to fellow employees in the lunchroom, and ob- tained signatures on four or five cards in addition to his own. He returned the cards to Francis in the rear lot and Francis left, promising to return in a few days to obtain additional cards which he had left with C. Salnajs for the night shift to sign. Upon returning to the plant, Irelan asked C. Salnajs who his visitor was. C. Salnajs simply re- plied that it was a matter of personal business, to which Ireland quizically noted that C. Salnajs' personal acquain- tance was driving quite an expensive automobile. About 2 days later, Francis returned to Respondent's plant, also at the lunch hour, and held a meeting in the rear parking lot with about six employees, including, but not limited to, the four discriminatees named in the complaint. C. Salnajs was unable to obtain any additional cards from the night shift, which was supervised by his brother,4 but 4 The General Counsel contends , and the Respondent denies, that James Salnajs was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act J. Salnajs was repeatedly referred to by all witnesses, both rank-and-file and management, as the night foreman . As noted above, Respondent does not always operate a night shift, although it was doing so in June 1974 up until June 25. During those occasions in which a night shift is working , J. Salnajs is the foreman He is hourly rated , as is the admitted supervisor, Irelan, and makes 50 cents an hour more than the next highest paid hourly rated employee. He cannot hire or fire, but on the night shift, he can excuse absences. He signed invoic- es certifying the presence of night shift "spot labor" which the Respondent utilized on a daily basis during the summer and early fall of 1974. He does a large amount of manual labor and is used as a welder on the day shift when the night shift is not in operation . During night shifts, he is the highest Francis indicated that he would proceed to contact Respondent's management and make a demand for recog- nition. During the informal meeting with employees in the parking lot, Francis discussed with them possible union benefits, attempted to allay their fears about being dis- charged for organizing, and answered questions which were put to him. Before leaving the area, Francis was able to meet with Company President Harold Bowman in Bowman's office. He claimed majority status, indicated that he had the cards to back it up, and asked for recognition. Bowman declined to discuss the matter with him but referred him to the Company's general corporate attorney, Daniel R. McCar- thy,s whereupon Francis left. At or about this same point in time, Jefferies began to call certain employees into Irelan's office for private dis- cussions. During a meeting with C. Salnajs, he told Salnajs that, in the near future, the Company was going to institute a profit-sharing plan for employees, although it was still in the planning stage at that moment. He also said something to C. Salnajs about dental plan and about company life insurance. In a similar individual meeting with Gary R. Kunzen, Jefferies told Kunzen that he was in the process of establishing a profit-sharing program for employees, as well as a dental insurance plan which would supplement existing Blue Cross coverage. He also told Kunzen that he was trying to obtain for him an increase in his hourly wage. Shortly after these interviews, C. Salnajs phoned union headquarters and told Francis to "hold up" pressing his demand for a contract. A day or two later,6 the Respondent called together its entire work force, including a salesman and a clerical em- ployee, in the lunchroom for a brief discussion with Bow- man. Jefferies began by saying that the Company had sev- eral fringe benefits under consideration but that they could do nothing now because the Union had come into the pic- ture. Bowman then told employees in question that, be- cause the Union had made a demand for recognition, his attorney advised him that he could not discuss or grant any benefits to employees because it would appear that he was trying to influence their support of the Union. According ranking employee on the company premises. Company Vice President James J. Jefferies testified that , at night, J. Salnajs was responsible for the production schedule, the security of the building, and the safety of the employees. As his employment in this capacity is regular and substantial, and as he was so employed at the time of the events at issue herein, I conclude that J Salnajs was a supervisor within the meaning of Sec. 2(1 1) of the Act. Phalo Plastics Corporation, 127 NLRB 1511 (1960), Inspiration Con- solidated Copper Company, 142 NLRB 53 (1963); Viking Bag Division, Shur- Fine Central Corporation, 161 NLRB 648 (1966); White Chapel Memorial Association, 167 NLRB 926 (1967); J F. B Manufacturing Co., Inc., 208 NLRB 21 (1973), Sewell Plastics, Inc, 212 NLRB 839 (1974); E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 210 NLRB 395 (1974); N.L.R.B v Florida Agricultural Supply Company, Div of Plymouth Cordage Company, 328 F.2d 989 (C.A 5, 1964). 5 There is some testimony in the record that Bowman, in a later discussion with employees, stated that he actually saw the designation cards which Francis obtained . Exhibiting cards upon an initial contact with an employer • is contrary to the practice of this Union Respondent denies that Bowman saw the cards or made a statement to employees that he saw the cards. I credit the denial. 6 The record is somewhat confused as to the precise sequence of events which followed immediately after Francis made the Union's demand for recognition The outline indicated above is based on the versions of testimo- ny credited on this point. 66 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to credited testimony, he indicated that he had been con- tacted by the Union and expressed anger at employees for going to the Union with their problems rather than in com- ing to him. In the course of this discussion , employees C. Salnajs and William Tate told Bowman that the employees were not actually represented by the Union. Employee Charles P. Sanner stated that they thought that the cards did not authorize the Union to represent them but merely were an expression of interest in learning what the Union had to say to them which would be of interest. Bowman replied that the Union had told him that it possessed signed cards and so he had to assume that the Union was representing the employees in question. Various employees mentioned specific items of improvement in wages which they wanted. Employee Ron Millie had a written list of grievances which he wished to discuss, but Bowman insist- ed that he could do nothing for them since the Union had been designated as their representative. Not long after this meeting, Tate, Kunzen, C. Salnajs and his brother, Night Foreman J. Salnajs , went to the union hall to talk with Francis and to discuss union benefits. At this point, the employees at the meeting reiterated to Francis an interest in seeing that the Union contact the Respondent's attorney and go forward with its original intention of acting as bar- gaining agent. On June 25, the Respondent laid off five employees, Kunzen, Sanner, C. Salnajs, John Gayneau, and John H. Knight. It did so by handing each of them a letter which stated as follows: Re: Work lay-offs Due to the prevailing economic conditions, which have resulted in a serious reduction of current order, National Utility Products Company is forced to re- duce its direct labor force until economic conditions change. Based upon this factor alone, we will not require our present level of employees directly involved in produc- tion. Effective, Tuesday, June 25, 1974, we regret to inform you that you personally will be included in this lay-off. We appreciate your past loyalty and service to the company, and as soon as conditions warrant, we will make every endeavor to return you to active employ- ment. The letter was signed by James F. Jefferies, as vice presi- dent of the Respondent. On the day of the layoff, Compa- ny President Bowman told Tate and a couple of other em- ployees that, when production picked up, he would make an effort to recall them. Jefferies told C. Salnajs that the reason for the layoff was that the foundry in Alabama, from which the Respondent obtained its raw castings, had shut down and that raw materials were unavailable. He said that the layoff would last about 2 weeks and that he would call C. Salnajs when there was more work at the factory. In fact, a shipment of castings arrived for pro- cessing on the day of the layoff. Jefferies also told Knight, when he handed him the layoff notice, that he hoped that the layoff would be a short one, something on the order of a month. Jefferies also told Kunzen that the reason for the layoff was that the foundry in Alabama had shut down for 2 weeks, but he expressed the hope that the NUPCO em- ployees could be called back around July 4. Jefferies told Gayneau that he would be recalled when business im- proved. Jefferies denies these oral statements to employees, but I discredit his denial. Shortly after the June 25 layoff, Respondent began hir- ing other employees, some on a temporary basis and others on a permanent basis. I credit Tate's statement that, when he came to work on June 27, four or five men from Man- power, a supplier of temporary labor, were employed doing assembling and drilling work. When Tate asked Irelan why the laid-off employees were not assigned to this work, Ire- lan replied that the Company did not want to harm their eligibility for unemployment by giving them short-term work and then laying them off a second time. I also credit Gayneau's statement that, at the time of his recall on July 3, the employees were working regularly at NUPCO, and that he was assigned to instruct them. On July 2, Respon- dent hired a college student, James Spellacy, and put him to work on a full-time basis doing production work. On or about July 15, it hired a second college student, Francis Gareau, and put him to work full time in a similar capaci- ty. Spellacy and Gareau worked the rest of the summer.7 Within a few days of the layoff, Gayneau returned to the factory to pick up his personal possessions which were stored in his locker. Irelan told him that he was not permit- ted on the premises, but did allow him to complete this errand. I credit Gayneau to the effect that, in the course of their conversation, Gayneau told Irelan that he was still loyal to the Company and did not sign a union card. He exhibited to Irelan an unsigned union card which he had taken from his locker. Irelan asked him how he could be sure that this was Gayneau's own card, since it did not have his name on it. Gayneau replied that he could not put his name on it because, by so doing, he would be affiliating with the Union. At this point, Irelan, J. Salnajs, and Tate were the only regular production employees left on the payroll. Tate mentioned to Jefferies that Gayneau had not in fact signed a card and urged that he be recalled. Jefferies said that, in such an event, he might be able to work some- thing out and instructed J. Salnajs to get in touch with Gayneau and ask him to return to work. Gayneau returned to work on July 3, and is still employed .8 Tate and Gay- neau regularly worked overtime on Saturdays following the layoff. During the summer months and on into September, the Respondent hired employees, whom it refers to as "spot labor," on a day-to-day basis from three suppliers of tem- porary employees, Manpower, Minute Men, Inc., and In- dustrial Labor Service. Respondent admits hiring "spot la- 7 Jeffenes' recollection of the employment status of Spellacy and Gareau was clearer and more positive than was the testimony of Irelan, who thought (but was not sure) that they had been hired before the layoff and were part-time employees. 8 It is undisputed that Gayneau did not in fact sign a union card. He did participate with other employees in organizational discussions and met with Francis and other employees in the parking lot on the occasion when Fran- cis was present to discuss union benefits and organizational procedures. Jefferies admits the conversation with Tate in which Tate recommended Gayneau's recall, but Jefferies did not recall any mention by Tate of Gayneau's declination to sign a union card . I credit Tate's recollection over Jefferies' lack of recall. NATIONAL UTILITY PRODUCTS COMPANY bor" totaling 88 hours on July 1, 2, 3, 8, and 9. It also admits hiring "spot labor" totaling 148 man-hours during the week ending August 25, 208 man-hours during the peri- od August 27-30, 232 man-hours from September 3 through 9, 344 man-hours from September 9 through 13, 246 man-hours from September 16 through 20, and 16 man-hours on September 23. Beginning late in July, it be- gan to hire additional permanent employees on its payroll. These were: Name Fred Stefano Michael Loan Craig Lewis Todd Starr Louis Mender Francis Shaw Francis O'Malley Date of Hire July 29, 1974 August 23, 1974 (part time) September 4, 1974 September 12, 1974 September 16, 1974 September 23, 1974 October 9, 1974 B. Analysis and Conclusions 1. Independent violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act Shortly after the Union made its demand for recogni- tion, Jefferies summoned Kunzen, C. Salnajs, and possibly other employees into Irelan's office for individual consulta- tions. He told both Kunzen and C. Salnajs that the Compa- ny had been considering, and was currently considering, a grant to employees of certain fringe benefits. He spoke spe- cifically of a profit-sharing plan, company life insurance, and a dental care plan to supplement Blue Cross coverage. Both the nature and timing of these conversations indicate clearly that their intendment and effect was to dissuade employees from pursuing efforts toward unionization, ef- forts which were then well known to Jefferies and to others in management. Accordingly, I find that such statements by Jefferies constituted a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I do not find in the record in this case substantial evidence of unlawful threats or interrogation of employees by Respondent's management which would violate the Act, so I will recommend that so much of the complaint that alleges such violations be dismissed. 2. The layoff of Kunzen, Knight, C. Salnajs, and Sanner The Respondent has placed in the record a prodigious amount of documentary evidence indicating that, in the calendar year 1974, the sale of adjustable risers by NUPCO had declined. The evidence is clear that during 1974, taken in its entirety , sales were down from about 43,000 units in 1973 to about 31,000 units, a decline of some 27 percent. How much of this decline was evident to the Respondent midway in the calendar year, when the layoff took place, is problematical. Late in June, just be- fore the layoff, Respondent received a cancellation of an order for 5,000 units which had previously been placed by the city of New York. During the entire year, declines oc- curred in sales to other major customers . Throughout the early part of 1974, and up to the point of the layoff, Re- spondent had been accumulating in its relatively small fac- tory building a stock of inventory which was being stacked in cases along the walls of the production area . In addition 67 to stocks of finished product, the walls were also stocked with raw iron which was scheduled for processing. Respondent's witnesses testified that the accumulation was not only untidy but that it was becoming a safety hazard. The necessary implication is that production had to be scaled down radically because there was no place to put the finished product, and insufficient demand to warrant any assumption that the stockpile would be shipped out in sufficient quantities in the near future to alleviate the cong- estion. While a decline in sales can be posited as factual prem- ise, other factors in the conduct of the employer, both be- fore and after the layoff, make it abundantly clear that this fact was not the motivating cause of the layoff. A claim of economic distress has often been found to be pretextual when antiunion motives of a respondent are laid bare by statements, acts, and conduct which are inconsistent with a plea of financial necessity. Serv-Air, Inc., 161 NLRB 382 (1966); Ventre Packing Company Inc., 163 NLRB 540 (1967); West Coast Casket Company, 192 NLRB 624 (1971), enfd. 469 F.2d 871 (C.A. 9, 1972); Mannington Elec- tric, Inc., 200 NLRB 970 (1972); Santa Rita Mining Compa- ny, a Division of Homestake Production Company, 200 NLRB 1070 (1972); Radiadores Paragon de Puerto Rico, 206 NLRB 918 (1973); Arlington Ridge Development Com- pany, 203 NLRB 787 (1973); Machinery Distribution Com- pany, 211 NLRB 756 (1974); VADA of Oklahoma, 216 NLRB No. 135. The Respondent herein was well aware of the decline in its sales and the increase in its inventory late in May and early in June 1974 , when it first employed Knight and Sanner, two discriminatees who were then laid off within a month of their employment, assertedly because of conditions which existed at the time they were hired. Nowhere in the record is this inconsistency explained. At the time of the layoff, Respondent handed the five laid-off employees written notices stating that the reason for the layoff was a decline in sales and that it would recall them when sales picked up. At the same time, Respondent's agents told employees that the reason for the layoff was not a decline in sales but a shortage of raw materials due to a shutdown of the foundry where they were produced. This shortage was asserted in the face of conflicting statements by the same witnesses that raw materials were available, and in fact were part of the congestion that was causing a safety problem, and in the face of other credited testimony that additional raw materials were arriving at the factory on the day of the layoff. The termination on June 25 was labeled and explained by the Respondent to its employees as a layoff. In fact, it was a permanent discharge as to the four discriminatees named in the complaint. They were told by the Respon- dent, in writing on June 25, that when an improvement in the Company's condition warranted the Respondent would "make every endeavor to return [them] to active employ- ment." When an improvement occurred to the point where the plant was back in production, Respondent made no effort to contact laid-off employees to offer them recall. Instead, it told two discriminatees who phoned in that no work was available, and excused its failure to recall both them and others with the unsupported supposition that it felt that the men in question did not want to return to 68 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD work, having heard that some (though not all) had ob- tained employment elsewhere. Moreover, Jefferies testified that the Respondent eliminated the employees in question at the time selected so that the men would have a better chance of obtaining employment elsewhere than they might otherwise have had if the Respondent had held off until a later date . Such a statement is wholly inconsistent with a desire to layoff and recall an employee, and is com- pletely at odds with statements made to employees by management on the date of the "layoff" that it would be of short-term duration. Irelan testified to the desperate need late in June for a reorganization and relocation of the materials which had accumulated in the plant, and of his insistence to Jefferies for help in cleaning up the place and in straightening up the boxes of inventory in order to remove a safety hazard. The asserted hazard did not arise over night, and to the extent that it existed, it was apparent to management at and before the layoff. If the Respondent was desirous of retaining the services of the laid-off individuals, they could easily have been shifted from production to cleanup. In- stead, this work was done in part by new hires and by temporary "spot labor" who were hired in the place of the discriminatees. Gayneau, who was laid off with the four discriminatees on June 25, did not in fact sign a union card. However, it is easy to see how the Respondent could have believed that he was part of the organizing drive. He participated in unionization discussions and was present with Union Pres- ident Francis and other employees at the impromptu meet- ing which occurred in the plant parking lot on the date of the Union's demand for recognition. When Gayneau, and others on his behalf, satisfied Jefferies that Gayneau was not in fact a union adherent, Gayneau was recalled promptly and put back to work. He is still there. In fact, there was a good deal of work to do at the plant when five employees were laid off on June 25. In order to perform this work, the Respondent soon thereafter hired two college students who worked for it throughout the summer months, put other employees on overtime during this same period, and hired a large amount of "spot labor" to perform the same tasks which the discriminatees herein were performing before they were discharged. After the dust of the layoff had settled, the Respondent then began to rebuild its work force. Instead of recalling the men it had promised to recall, it hired an entire new work force, with four exceptions, and such is the work force which it is currently utilizing. When the layoff was completed on June 25, the Respon- dent had left in its production area only two supervisors and a maintenance man. The rest of its work force was gone. It is quite clear that its intention at that point was to retain only a cadre of essential employees and to reconsti- tute its work force with people who had played no part in the organizing campaign. This is exactly what it did. When Francis came into Bowman's office and asserted that he represented the employees, or a majority thereof, it was not hard for Bowman and Jefferies to ascertain who, among their employee complement of 10, these union adherents might be. At a meeting which Bowman held with them a few days later, their previous activities surfaced in the course of the discussion, if only in the posture of an at- tempt to deny or avoid the full meaning and import of what they had done in signing union cards. When Jefferies found out that he had made a mistake in the inclusion of a nonunion employee among those selected for layoff, he promptly rectified the mistake and brought the man back to work. In light of these considerations, I conclude that the Respondent herein, on June 25, 1974, unlawfully termi- nated Gary R. Kunzen, Charles Salnajs, Charles Sanner, and John Knight because they had designated or selected Local 415 of the Teamsters to be their agent for purposes of collective bargaining. In so doing, this Respondent vio- lated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record herein considered as a whole, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent National Utility Products Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. Local 415, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discharging Gary R. Kunzen, Charles Salnajs, Charles Sanner, and John Knight for engaging in union activities, the Respondent herein violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 4. By the acts and conduct set forth in Conclusion of Law 3, and by promising employees benefits in order to dissaude them from engaging in union activities , the Re- spondent herein violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices have a close, inti- mate, and substantial effect on interstate commerce, within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer- tain unfair labor practices, I will recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative actions designed to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act. Because the unlawful activity found herein is aggravated and includes the discriminatory dis- charge of four individuals, I will recommend to the Board a so-called broad 8(a)(1) order designed to suppress any and all invasions of employee rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Manufacturing Company, 120 F.2d 532 (C.A. 4, 1941). The recommended Order shall provide that the Respondent be required to offer to the four discriminatees named in the complaint reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent employment, and that the Respondent make them whole for any loss of earnings which they have suffered, in accordance with the Woolworth formula. with interest computed thereon at 6 percent per annum. I will also recommend that the Re- spondent be required to post a notice, advising its employ- 9 F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950). NATIONAL UTILITY PRODUCTS COMPANY ees of their rights and of the remedy in this case. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and upon the entire record herein considered as a whole, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I make the fol- lowing recommended: ORDER10 Respondent National Utility Products Company, West- lake, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Promising benefits to employees in order to induce them to refrain from engaging in union activities. (b) Discouraging membership in Local 415, Internation- al Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor organization, by discharging employees or otherwise discriminating against them in regard to their hire or tenure of employ- ment or any term or condition of employment. (c) By any means or in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Gary R. Kunzen, Charles Salnajs, Charles Sanner, and John Knight full and immediate reinstatement to their former positions or, in the event that these former positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent posi- tions, without prejudice to their seniority or to other rights which they formerly enjoyed. (b) Make whole Gary R. Kunzen, Charles Salnajs, Charles Sanner, and John Knight for any loss of pay suf- fered by them by reason of the discrimination found here- in, in the manner described above in the section entitled "Remedy." (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay- roll and other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this recommended Order. (d) Post at the Respondent's place of business in West- lake, Ohio, copies of the attached notice, marked "Appen- dix." 11 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 8, after being duly signed by a representative of the Respondent, shall be posted imme- diately upon receipt thereof, and shall be maintained by the Respondent for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con- spicuous places, including all places where notices to em- ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered over by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith. 69 Insofar as the complaint alleges violations of the Act which have not been found herein, the complaint is hereby dismissed. 10 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. 11 In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the 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 " APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT promise benefits to employees in order to discourage them from joining a union or from aid- ing and assisting a union. WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against employees because they have engaged in union activities. All of our employees are free to become or remain members of Local 415, International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT by any any means or in any manner, interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the ex- ercise of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL offer to Gary R. Kunzen, Charles Salnajs, Charles Sanner, and John Knight full and immediate reinstatement to their former or substantially equiva- lent employment, and we will make them whole for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of the discrimination which was found in this case, with in- terest thereon at 6 percent per annum. NATIONAL UTILITY PRODUCTS COMPANY