IRI, Inc.

330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IRI, Incorporated and United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case 9-CA-8958 September 16, 1975 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING AND PENELLO On June 16, 1975, Administrative Law Judge Wal- ter H. Maloney, Jr., issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the 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 2 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, IRI, Incorporated, Louisville, Kentucky, its officers , agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. i 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 findings. 2 In finding that Respondent discharged employee James M. Harrod, Jr., in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, we rely particularly on the evi- dence that Respondent had previously set about laying the groundwork to fire Harrod . This evidence consists of the credited testimony of employee Walter Evans that Foreman Leslie Kirk told Evans he was receiving a writ- ten reprimand to make it appear that Harrod was not the only employee being disciplined, and employee Jeffery Toebbe's credited testimony that Kirk told him in September that Respondent was going to fire Harrod. This predetermination to terminate Harrod, combined with its union animus as evidenced by Respondent's several 8(a)(l) violations, convinces us that Har- rod was discharged because of his organizational activity and support for the Union. DECISION FINDINGS OF FACT A. Statement of the Case WALTER H. MALONEY, JR., Administrative Law Judge: This case came on for hearing before me at Louisville, Kentucky, on a complaint,' issued by the Regional Direc- tor for Region 9 of the National Labor Relations Board, which alleges that the Respondent, IRI, Incorporated,2 dis- criminatorily discharged James M. Harrod, Jr., on Novem- ber 1, 1974, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. The complaint also alleges that the Respondent committed var- ious independent violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, including unlawful interrogation of employees and threats to employees that the plant would close in the event of unionization . Respondent asserts that Harrod was dis- charged along with 20 other employees who were laid off at the same time for economic reasons , and that he was se- lected to be among those laid off because of a poor work record, excessive absenteeism , and lack of versatility. Re- spondent denies the commission of the independent viola- tions of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act or asserts that they were de minimis. Upon these contentions the issues herein were joined.3 B. Outline of Events in Question Respondent operates a tire manufacturing plant in the environs of Louisville, Kentucky. It opened its factory in the spring of 1974 and hired about 50 production and maintenance employees, whom it began to train in certain new production techniques which it was inaugurating. The Respondent produces a premium automobile tire and, at its factory, is utilizing some processes which in some re- spects might be described as experimental. The work force which it hired during the spring and summer months was largely unskilled and was hired, for the most part, as gener- al labor at the same pay rate. While employees were nor- mally utilized at a single operation, they were subject to assignment to any operation in the plant, and, within the limitation of their skills and experience, were in fact as- signed to various different operations. These variations in assignment took place especially when the Company expe- i The principal docket entries in this case are as follows : Charge filed by United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum, and Plastic Workers of America, AFL- CIO (herein called Union) on November 18, 1974; complaint issued by Regional Director on January 28, 1975; Respondent's answer filed on Janu- ary 31, 1975, hearing held in Louisville, Kentucky, on April 2, 1975; briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent on May 5, 1975. 2 The Respondent admits, and I find, that it is a Kentucky corporation which maintains its principal place of business in Louisville, Kentucky, where it is engaged in the manufacture, distribution , and sale of automobile tires. During the preceding 12 months, a representative period , it sold and shipped from its Louisville, Kentucky, plant to points and places outside the Commonwealth of Kentucky goods valued in excess of $50,000 According- ly, the Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Sec 2 (2), (6), and (7) of the Act. The United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec. 2(5) of the Act 7 The transcript in this case is hereby corrected in certain respects. 220 NLRB No. 45 IRI, INCORPORATED 331 rienced absenteeism which necessitated reassignments, and took place more frequently on the afternoon and midnight shifts because there were few employees on these shifts. In the middle or late summer of 1974, an organizing drive began at IRI . The drive was initiated by the discrimi- natee herein, James M. Harrod, Jr., who contacted the Union and obtained about 30 or 40 union cards. He ob- tained signatures on 30 or 35 cards and returned them to union officials . Harrod worked on the second shift as a first-stage tire builder. He testified without contradiction that he was able to sign up 100 percent of the employees on the second shift, all of the employees on the midnight shift, and about 80 percent of the first shift. Among those who signed union designation cards were various employee wit- nesses presented by the General Counsel, including Juan D. Logsdon and Terrence Rupe. Respondent admits knowing, or at least having good rea- son to believe, that Harrod was the in-house leader of the organizational drive. Throughout the months of August, September, and October, Respondent made repeated in- quiries as to the progress of the organizational drive. Its vice president in charge of manufacturing , William E. Wal- lace, III , admits making inquiries of supervisors from time to time as to their own impressions of the vitality of the organizational drive. I credit the testimony that he went beyond merely asking supervisors about the status of the campaign and directed repeated inquiries on this subject to rank-and-file employees. Thus, in August, Foreman Leslie Dale Kirk told Harrod to report to Wallace's office. When he arrived, Wallace asked Harrod "What are you trying to do to me?" When Harrod professed ignorance of what Wallace was talking about, Wallace said, "Well, you know these union cards you've been passing around trying to get signed." Wallace went on to tell Harrod that the Company could not operate with a union, and asked Harrod why he was engaged in organizing. Harrod replied that he was un- happy about trying to get machinery repaired and com- plained that some of it was unsafe. On another occasion in September, when Harrod was at work manning an extruder machine, Wallace came over to him and again asked him how the union drive was going. Harrod said he did not know. Wallace went on to repeat the sentiments he had voiced earlier, namely that the Union would harm the Company. On October 16, 1974, Harrod appeared in conjunction with the Union at the hearing held by a Board agent on the Union's representa- tion petition.4 Sometime between the date of the hearing and Harrod's layoff on November 1, Wallace came to Har- rod while he was working at the dock and again asked him how the organization drive was progressing. Harrod replied that he did not know. Wallace asked Harrod, "Do you know what you are doing to me?" Harrod replied in the negative, at which point Wallace called him "a lying s.o.b." s 4 In September or October 1974, the Union filed a representation petition seeking an election at the IRI factory (Case 9-RC-10761) A hearing on the petition was held on October 16. An election was held on November 27, which the Union lost by a substantial majority. s Harrod was uncertain whether this conversation took place in Septem- ber or late October . However, he was certain that it occurred . While deny- ing that he interrogated employees concerning union activities, Wallace Wallace did not limit his inquiries to Harrod. Sometime in September he spoke with Logsdon at Logsdon's work station and asked him if he had signed a card. Logsdon replied in the negative. Wallace then asked him if he fa- vored the Union, and Logsdon again replied in the nega- tive, whereupon Wallace told him that it was a good thing he was not for the Union because, if the Union came into the plant, whoever was for it would go out the door and the doors would be locked behind them. At or about this same point in time, Logsdon had occasion to visit the company office at the end of a shift to check on work schedules and encountered Wallace. Wallace again asked him if he was for the Union, and he said no. Wallace and Third Shift Foreman Marvin Meyerhofer, who was at his desk in the office, told Logsdon that if the Union came into the plant the Company would not be able to support it. Wallace then asked Logsdon what the Union could do for him. Logsdon then complained about the safety in the plant. Wallace also told him that the reason the Rubber Workers wanted to organize the plant was that it was a competitor of the large tire companies, where the Rubber Workers was the bar- gaining agent, and it was only interested in putting IRI out of business. Early in September, Wallace spoke with em- ployee Terrence Rupe at Rupe's work station. He asked Rupe if Rupe had signed a card, and Rupe replied no. He also asked Rupe who was circulating the cards, and Rupe identified Harrod as the solicitor. On September 18, some 5 weeks before his final termina- tion, Harrod was discharged by his foreman, Leslie D. Kirk, and immediately reinstated at the direction of Wal- lace. Kirk discharged Harrod - the only employee he ever discharged-midway in the late afternoon shift on that day, assertedly for poor production. According to Kirk, an average tire builder performing the function assigned to Harrod should be able to produce between 25 and 35 tires per shift. On the day in question, Harrod was averaging between three and four tires per shift, and had completed about six or eight tires by 6 p.m. About 9 p.m. Kirk called Harrod to come upstairs and told him that he was being discharged for failing to do his work. Kirk then reported his action by phone to Wallace. Wallace told Kirk that his action was too harsh and permitted Harrod to return to work at the beginning of the afternoon shift on the next day. Instead of discharge, Kirk gave Harrod a written warning, dated September 19, in which he reprimanded Harrod for inefficiency in failing to produce in excess of 25 tires per shift. The written reprimand recited that Harrod had been verbally warned on several previous occasions, and indicated that this was Harrod's final warning. On the same day that he gave Harrod the above-noted warning, Kirk also gave first-stage tire builder Walter Ev- ans a written warning. When he gave Evans the notice, Kirk explained to Evans that the warning would be torn up in 6 months, and the the purpose of giving him a warning at the same time Harrod received one was to make it ap- pear that Harrod was not the only one who was being dis- ciplined.6 On this same day, Wallace asked Evans if he had signed a union card. Evans said no, to which Wallace re- never denied using the above-quoted epithet to Harrod. 6 Kirk denies making this statement to Evans. I credit Evans. 332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD plied, "You see what happened to Jim [Harrod]?" At or about this same time, Kirk gave another written warning to Jeffery Toebbe, a first-stage tire builder. Kirk complained to Toebbe that Toebbe was losing interest in his job. Either on this or on another occasion, Kirk warned Toebbe that if he did not straighten up he would be fired like Harrod- "and we are going to fire him." Kirk added that the Com- pany had papers providing it with "proof" to support the prospective discharge of Harrod.? On October 21, Harrod was given a second written warning for being absent on October 18 without verifica- tion. Like the September 19 warning this notification was also termed a "final warning." It was given to him by Fore- man Alton McElfresh. On October 24, Harrod was given a third written warning for stopping work without justifica- tion or excuse. With regard to the October 18 warning no- tice, Harrod testified credibly that he had presented a doctor's certificate either to Kirk or to Wallace, and that he had told Kirk and McElfresh so. However, Kirk said that Wallace told him to issue the written reprimand anyway. As to the October 24 warning, Harrod also testified credi- bly that he tried to explain to Kirk that his machine had electrical failures and was repeatedly malfunctioning. Kirk replied that he was merely doing his job. As indicated previously, the Company and the Union were parties to a representation hearing which was held on October 16. At that time, Wallace was under the impres- sion that a reduction in force might be forthcoming but had no specific plans to make one. During the last week in October, at a meeting between the company officials and a representative of a New York banking institution which had extended a line of credit, company officials were in- formed that, because of a downturn in sales, the line of credit would no longer be extended. About 3 days later, on November 1, Respondent laid off 21 employees, including Harrod. The layoff had the effect of eliminating the mid- night shift and of combining it with a reduced second shift. The termination was described to employees as an indefi- nite layoff, but many, including Harrod, were advised to seek other employment. On November 27, when laid-off employees attempted to vote in the representation election, their ballots were challenged by the Company, but the va- lidity of the challenges was never resolved as these ballots were not determinative of the election results. Harrod had more seniority than 15 employees who were retained and less seniority than 7 who were retained. Wallace testified that he selected individuals for layoff after consultation with his foreman, although their testimony does not bear out his assertion. Late in March, three of the individuals who were laid off on November 1 were recalled. C. Analysis and Conclusions 1. The independent violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act Based on credited evidence recited above, I conclude that the Respondent herein violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the following threats and coercive interrogation: (a) In August 1974, in Wallace's office and in an atmo- sphere and context of hostility, Wallace coercively interro- gated Harrod as to why he was soliciting signatures on union designation cards. (b) In September 1974, at the extruder machine, Wal- lace coercively interrogated Harrod as to how the union drive was going . The reply, namely, that Harrod did not know, was a false reply since Harrod, the principal if not only card solicitor , was in the best position of any person to know how the drive was going. His false reply is an element to be assessed in evaluating the coercive nature of the interrogation. (c) Again, while Harrod was working on the dock, Wal- lace asked Harrod the same question and received the same answer. It was at this time that Wallace referred to Harrod as a "lying s.o.b.," a remark which clearly adds a hostile note to the conversation. (d) In September, Wallace spoke to Logsdon at his ma- chine and asked him if he had signed a card , a question to which Logsdon gave the reply that he had not. This ques- tion was given a coercive setting when Wallace followed it with a threat that if the Union came into the plant the Company would fire employees who supported it and would lock the doors of the plant behind them. (e) Later, in the company office, Wallace further probed into Logsdon's union sentiments by asking him if he was for the Union, asking him what the Union could do for employees that the Company could not, and then telling him that the Company could not support a union, an ob- lique way of saying that the plant would close if the Union were successful in its effort. (f) Wallace also violated the Act by asking Rupe, at Rupe's work station, if he was for the Union, and by asking him who was circulating union cards. Rupe gave Wallace a false reply. The contexts of these interrogations clearly show their coercive nature . They were made by the highest company official associated in any way with production, not by a line foreman. Some of the interrogations were made in the company office. The interrogations were not isolated but were repeated, and were often accompanied by threats or pejorative remarks evidencing Wallace's hostility to union- ization. In some instances, the employees responded to Wallace untruthfully, indicating a desire on their part to conceal their union activities for fear of reprisal. Such in- terrogations not only offend a per se ban on interrogations respecting union activities , but also run contrary to the more flexible rule on interrogations on union matters ex- pressed in such court decision as Bonnie Bourne d/b/a Bourne Co. v. N.L.R.B., 332 F.2d 47 (C.A. 2, 1964); St. Louis Car Division v. N.L.R.B., 439 F.2d 1145 (C.A. 8, 1971); N. L. R.B. v. Consolidated Diesel Electric Co., 469 F.2d 1016 (C.A. 4, 1972); and Chauffeurs, Teamsters, and Helpers Local No. 663 of New Hampshire v. N.L.R. B., 509 F.2d 490 (C.A.D.C., 1974). The threats carry with them their own badge of coercive conduct. 2. The discharge of James M. Harrod, Jr. 7This statement by Kirk to Toebbe is largely unconiradicted The General Counsel does not challenge the legality of IRI, INCORPORATED 333 the mass layoff (or discharge) which occurred on Novem- ber 1. The timing of this layoff is suspicious, in that it fell between the date of the representation case and the hold- ing of the election, and was not specifically contemplated by company officials even a brief 2 weeks before the event occurred. On the other hand, the Respondent suffered the loss of a line of credit 3 days before the layoff, and the layoff of all but three of the employees in question has lasted some 5 months as of the time of the instant hearing. Such factors would bear out the belief that the mass layoff itself was economic in its inception. The nub of the General Counsel's position is that the inclusion of Harrod among those laid off was discriminato- ry and, as such, it should be remedied by reinstatement and backpay. In this contention, he is met with the Respondent's several defenses. Respondent established that, in the 5-week period preceding the layoff, Harrod received three written disciplinary warnings: one for un- der-production, one for unexcused absence, and the third for turning off his machine and interrupting production without justification. On their face, these warnings suggest that Harrod was something less than a satisfactory employ- ee. Respondent further points out that, at the time of the layoff, all of its production and maintenance employees- both those who were sent home and those who were re- tained-had been working for it only a few months and that any variation in seniority which might exist between any of its employees was minimal, amounting to a few days or at most to a few months. Respondent also points out certain deficiencies in Harrod's production record when stacked up alongside the production record of eight other first-stage tire assemblers. In this operation, unlike some other facets of its produc- tion process, the Respondent keeps certain daily records by which it can measure the productivity of some of its em- ployees. In total monthly production for October, the only month for which statistics were provided, Harrod ranked sixth out of nine among those engaged in first-stage tire assembling.' In terms of daily production, Harrod ranked also sixth out of nine in first-stage tire assembling.9 At the time of the layoff, assemblers Drury, J. Harris, F. Harris, 8 In order of daily productivity in October, these nine ranked as follows- F. Harris 27.5 tires per day Caldwell 27.2 tires per day L. Harris 27.2 tires per day Drury 26.0 tires per day Evans 20.6 tires per day HARROD 19.8 tires per day Murray 18.8 tires per day Toebbe 18.2 tires per day Brown 13.9 tires per day 9 In order of total productivity in October these employees were. F. Harris 578 tires Caldwell 572 tires L. Harris 517 tires Drury 469 tires Evans 413 tires Evans 413 tires HARROD 397 tires Toebbe 383 tires Brown 209 tires Murray 320 tires and Caldwell were retained while Evans, Murray, Toebbe, Brown, and Harrod were laid off. Caldwell had less senior- ity than Harrod; Drury, J. Harris, and F. Harris had more seniority. Hence, Respondent did not follow seniority among tire builders in selecting employees for layoff, re- taining Caldwell in preference to Harrod assertedly be- cause of Caldwell's superior productivity and versatility. However, versatility among employees was a factor con- sidered by Wallace in selecting employees for layoff. Con- trary to Respondent's contention, Harrod performed other functions besides those of a first-stage tire builder. He op- erated the extruder machine and worked on the body ply and the orbit tread. We have no statistics relating to Harrod's performance in these functions or how his pro- ductivity compared with others who performed these func- tions. Since first-stage tire builders were only a few of the many employees who were laid off, and since employees were hired, assigned, and paid for the performance of gen- eral labor throughout the plant rather than for specially defined tasks, the statistics proffered by the Respondent in support of its decision to terminate Harrod are of limited relevance. Wallace asserted that seniority was a factor which he considered in selecting employees for layoff. While Caldwell's superior productivity may have explained why Caldwell, a junior employee, was retained in preference to Harrod, productivity does not explain why a total of 15 of the 23 retained employees were junior to Harrod, the most senior employee on the afternoon shift. Respondent in its brief points out that the seniority differential between em- ployees was small, but small though it may have been, it was Wallace who stated that the Respondent relied upon it in determining who was to stay and who was to go when, in fact, seniority played no such role as to Harrod. Any sug- gestion that seniority bore in any way upon Harrod's status at the time of the November 1 layoff is demonstrably false on the basis of the Respondent's own records. The mere reliance by the Respondent on such a transparently errone- ous excuse itself casts doubt upon the bona fides of its en- tire defense. Harrod was not discharged for the first time on Novem- ber 1. He was also discharged on September 18 and was immediately reinstated. The ostensible basis for the origi- nal discharge by Line Foreman Kirk was Harrod's inabili- ty to meet a production quota or expectation of 25 tires per day. However, the Respondent's exhibit, detailing the pro- ductivity of first-line tire assemblers, indicates that five out of nine of these employees fell far short of this expectation. Evans produced in October only 20.6 tires per day, while Harrod, Murray, Toebbe, and Brown were further shy of this mark. Yet no disciplinary action was taken against any assembler except Harrod, the known leader of the organiz- ing drive. Moreover, on the day of the discharge, Harrod was, by Kirk's own admission, producing tires at a rate which would meet or exceed the Respondent's alleged dai- ly production standard for first-stage tire assemblers. These facts alone make it crystal clear that the discharge of Sep- tember 18 was discriminatory in character. Indeed, Wal- lace was well aware of the fact that this action would not stand up under searching inquiry, so he immediately rein- stated Harrod at the beginning of the following shift. 334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD As admitted by Respondent's agents to credited witness- es other than Harrod, Respondent set about laying the groundwork for a discharge of Harrod which would stick. Late in September, Kirk admitted to Evans that he was issuing him a fake warning as a cover device to make a similar warning to Harrod appear more plausible. Kirk told other employees in advance of the event that Harrod was going to be fired, and announced this fact in the con- text of statements indicating that the Company was taking pains to cover up the union animus which was its real mo- tive. In view of this background, as well as Harrod's cred- ited testimony, it is equally clear that the two subsequent written warnings issued by the Respondent to Harrod in October were part and parcel of the same long-term effort to eliminate a union activist from its payroll. As part of Respondent's pretextual scheme, they afford no support for the contention that Harrod was selected for layoff be- cause of his unsatisfactory job performance. Moreover, it should be remembered that the selection of Harrod was being taken by a Respondent who demonstrated its intense hostility to unionization by a host of antiunion statements uttered over an extended period of time, both to Harrod and to others in the plant. In light of these considerations, there is little doubt that the selection of Harrod for layoff on November 1 was made for reasons of union animus and not for the reasons advanced by the Respondent. Accord- ingly, I find that, by laying off Harrod on November 1, the Respondent herein violated 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 IRI, Incorporated, is an employer en- gaged in commerce and in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum, and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discharging James M. Harrod, Jr., for engaging in union activities, the Respondent herein violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 4. By the acts and conduct set forth above in Conclusion of Law 3; by coercively interrogating employees about their union activities and the union activities of other em- ployees; and by threatening to close the plant and to dis- charge employees in the event of unionization , the Respon- dent herein violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices have a close, inti- mate, and substantial effect upon interstate commerce, within the meaning of Section 2(6) and 2(7) of the Act. THE REMEDY an employee, I will recommend to the Board a so -called broad 8(a)(1) order designed to suppress any and all inva- sions of employee rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Manufacturing Company, 120 F.2d 432 (C.A. 4, 1941). The recommended Order shall provide that the Respondent be required to offer to James M. Harrod, Jr., reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent employment, and that Respondent make him whole for any loss of earnings which he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination practiced against him, in accordance with the Woolworth formula, 1° and with inter- est thereon computed at 6 percent per annum . Isis Plumb- ing and Heating Company , 138 NLRB 712 (1962). 1 will also recommend that the Respondent be required to post a no- tice, advising its employees of their rights and of the reme- dy 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: ORDER " Respondent IRI, Incorporated , Louisville, Kentucky, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their union activities and sentiments and the union activities and sentiments of other employees. (b) Threatening employees with discharge or with the closing of the plant in the event of unionization. (c) Discouraging membership in United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum, and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , by discharging employees or otherwise discriminating against them in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (d) By any means or in any other 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 purposes and policies of the Act: (a) Offer to James M. Harrod , Jr., full and immediate reinstatement to his former position or, in the event that his former position no longer exists, to substantially equivalent employment, without prejudice to his seniority or to other rights which he formerly enjoyed. (b) Make whole James M . Harrod, Jr., for any loss of pay suffered by him by reason of the discrimination found herein, in the manner described in the section entitled "The Remedy." (c) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying all payroll and other records necessary to analyze the amount of 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 other actions designed to effectuate the purposes and poli- cies of the Act. Because the unlawful activity found herein is aggravated and includes the discriminatory discharge of 10 F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 ( 1950). 11 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. IRI, INCORPORATED backpay due under the terms of this Order. (d) Post at the Respondent's place of business in Louis- ville, Kentucky, copies of the attached notice marked "Ap- pendix."12 Copies of said notices , on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 9, 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 by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith. 12 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. APPENDIX 335 NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning their union activities and sentiments and the union activi- ties and sentiments of other employees. WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge employees or to close our plant in the event that the plant is unionized. WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against employees in the hire and tenure of their em- ployment because they have engaged in union activi- ties. All of our employees are free to become or re- main members of the United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any other manner or by any means, interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the ex- ercise of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act. These rights include the right of self-organization, the right to form, join, or assist labor organizations, the right to bargain collectively through representa- tives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar- gaining or other mutual aid and protection. WE WILL offer to James M. Harrod, Jr., full and immediate reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent employment, and WE WILL make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination which was found in this case, with interest thereon at 6 percent per annum. IRI, INCORPORATED