Hale Manufacturing Co., Inc.

10 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Hale Manufacturing Co., Inc. and James McKinney. Case 14-CA-9208 February 4, 1977 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, PENELLO, AND WALTHER On October 14, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Phil Saunders issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the 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 National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions' and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,2 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 Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Hale Manufac- turing Co., Inc., Taylor, Missouri, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. I Respondent has requested oral argument This request is hereby denied as the record, the exceptions, and the brief adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties. We have also considered Respondent's motion to reopen the record and find that motion to be without merit Accordingly, Respondent's motion to reopen is hereby dismissed. 2 The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibili- ty 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 DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE PHIL SAUNDERS, Administrative Judge: Based on a charge filed by James McKinney on March 25, 1976, a complaint against Hale Manufacturing Co., Inc., herein the Company or Respondent, was issued on May 6, 1976, alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor I The facts found herein are based on the record as a whole upon my observation of the witnesses The credibility resolutions herein have been derived from a review of the entire testimonial record and exhibits with due regard for the logic of probability, the demeanor of the witnesses, and the teaching of N L R.B v Walton Manufacturing Company & Loganville Pants Company, 369 U S 404, 408 (1962) As to those witnesses testifying in 228 NLRB No. 4 Relations Act, as amended. Respondent filed an answer to the complaint denying it had engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices. A hearing in this proceeding was held before me, and both the General Counsel and Respondent filed briefs. Upon the entire record in this case, and from my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor,' I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Respondent is a corporation duly authorized to do business under the laws of the State of Missouri and, at all times material herein, Respondent has maintained a place of business in the city of Taylor, Missouri, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of horse trailers and related products. Respondent's plant located at Taylor, Missouri (sometimes referred to as West Quincy), is the only facility involved in this proceeding, During the year ending December 31, 1975, which period is representative of its operations during all times material herein, Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, manufactured, sold, and distributed at its Taylor, Missouri, plant, products valued in excess of $50,000, of which products valued in excess of $50,000 were shipped from Respondent's plant directly to points located outside of the State of Missouri. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED There is no labor organization, as such, involved in this proceeding. 111. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES It is alleged in the complaint that on or about March 11, 1975, Respondent discriminatorily discharged its produc- tion employees Dennis Stice, Joseph Thomas, Thomas McKinney, Mike Boltz, Larry Daggs, Leslie Heinze, and Kenneth Rothweiler because they engaged in a concerted request for a pay raise.2 This record shows that as of March 11, 1976, Respondent had seven employees, the alleged discriminatees herein, who worked in the production operation at this plant, and one shop foreman, James McKinney. Although James McKinney was also terminated along with the other production employees, his termination is not alleged as violative of the Act since he was a supervisory employee. For background purposes this record shows that from time to time Respondent's production employees have engaged in various concerted activities in attempts to improve their working conditions. In October 1975, Re- spondent instituted a bonus plan whereby employees would contradiction to the findings herein, their testimony has been discredited, either as having been in conflict with the testimony of credible witnesses or because it was in and of itself incredible and unworthy of belief All testimony has been reviewed and weighed in the light of the entire record 2 The transcript in this proceeding is corrected in accordance with General Counsel's motion dated July 21, 1976 HALE MANUFACTURING CO. 11 share the amount that they saved Respondent in the cost of building trailers, and the employees involved herein began receiving such bonus checks starting in October or Novem- ber 1975. On or about February 26, 1976, the plant here in question ran out of certain parts and as a result the production of trailers temporarily ceased. Respondent's plant manager, Al Godsey, then directed Shop Foreman James McKinney to ask three or four production employees to come in the next day to inventory and clean up, since they were unable to produce the trailers without the parts. McKinney then had employees Joe Thomas, Dennis Stice, and Tom McKinney (the brother of the shop foreman) do this work, and on February 27, 1976, Joe Thomas and Tom McKin- ney worked from 8 a.m. until 12 noon, while Stice and Foreman Jim McKinney worked until 2 p.m. It further appears that sometime within or during the following week Foreman Jim McKinney computed the amount of money that the employees should receive as a bonus for the month of February and related this figure to the other production employees involved herein; but when the employees received their bonus checks on March 5, 1976, they found that the checks were for a lesser amount than they had expected or anticipated. Foreman Jim McKinney then went to Plant Manager Godsey about the matter, but Godsey explained that the wages for February 27, 1976,3 had been deducted from the bonus payments since it constituted part of the cost of production. About the same time employee Stice also complained to Plant Manager Godsey about the February bonus checks being less than what they had expected, and a heated discussion then ensued between employee Stice and Godsey. Stice finally informed Godsey that as far as he was concerned Godsey "could take the lousy hours, seven hours that I worked that day, and stick it." Godsey told Stice that he was tired of hearing his "bitching" and then left the room. On March 8, 9, and 10, although the seven employees involved herein worked as usual, they continued their discussions concerning the shortage in their bonus checks and also talked about various other working conditions, and it appears that for the most part these discussions were held before and after work, on breaktime, and at lunchtime. However, the alleged discnminatees herein decided to wait until Godsey returned from his trip and then talk to him about these matters, and they also decided that they would ask for $5 per hour for all production employees, and the complete elimination of the aforementioned bonus plan. On March 11, Plant Manager Godsey returned from pending business in Madison, Wisconsin, only to find the seven production employees anxious to confront him concerning these matters . Godsey then went into the office of Foreman McKinney and was verbally challenged by the seven production employees on certain working conditions, but particularly on the above salary plan which the employees had in mind. Employee Thomas informed Godsey that they wanted to change the bonus plan to a 9 All dates are 1976 unless stated otherwise 4 Normal production was about 10 trailers per week, but for the week ending March 10, 4-I /2 working days, only 6 trailers were completed. 5 Godsey testified that he had been aware of the slowdown dunng the workweek in question, that the production employees had not worked from 7 to 9 a in on the morning of March 11 , that they were having a "heated straight hourly salary of $5 per hour and which figured out to 75 cents an hour, plus a 25-cent-an-hour cost-of-living increase. At one point during the group discussions Godsey asked, "What will it take?" Shop Foreman Jim McKinney answered that it would take the elimination of the bonus plan so that the employees would receive $5 an hour and the employees promised to produce the same volume of trailers that they did the month before? Further discussions then followed, but after a while Godsey raised his hand and told employees, "There just isn't any way I am paying it; you are all going to have to go home." Several employees testified that they had never seen Godsey that angry on any other occasion. However, before Godsey left the office, Thomas also asked him if he, Godsey, needed 13 cents to mail Thomas' check, but Godsey said that he could "handle that." The employees involved herein then immediately went to the timeclock, clocked their cards out, and left the building.5 The next day, March 12,, Jim McKinney went back to the plant to return his keys, and to find out why Godsey would not consider the raise that they had asked for, and why he got "all hostile" and fired them. Godsey then replied, "I didn't fire you, you quit." McKinney then told Godsey, "Well, Al, you told us to go home. When you tell employees to go home, you are the boss, and go home means to go home, so, they went home." Godsey answered by saying they were "demanding too much" - obviously referring to the request by the alleged discriminatees for a straight $5- an-hour wage and eliminating the bonus plan. Jim McKin- ney then asked about getting his own job back, but Godsey informed him that the plant was not going to have a shop foreman anymore, and in his place he was going to have a "leadman," but then Godsey immediately inquired where he could contact him. McKinney replied that he knew where he could get in touch with him. Godsey never offered former Shop Foreman Jim McKinney his job back. At the conclusion of their conversation Godsey informed Jim McKinney that if the employees "wanted to come back to work" to be there Monday morning and he would try to work something out. On or about March 11 or 12, alleged discriminatees Thomas and Stice had a phone conversation with Respon- dent's accountant, Gregg Niese. It appears that Stice initially talked to Niese and he asked Stice why the production employees had quit. Stice told him that they did not quit, but were told to go home. Then Thomas got on the phone and Niese asked him the same questions, and Thomas replied that they had not quit, but went home because they were told to do so. Niese then told Thomas that he wished that the employees would all come back to work, and Thomas answered that they would come back when they got the grievance settled. On or about March 12, Thomas also had a phone conversation with Respondent's truckdriver John Totsch, and Totsch asked Thomas why they had quit. Thomas told him that they did not quit but that Godsey told them to go discussion" on the occasion here in question, and, since they were not getting any place, he did tell the production employees that they might as well go home, but that he was not terminating them - Godsey stated that the employees had already refused to work, and they could either go back to work or negotiate with him, but they "didn't seem to want to do either one " 12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD home, and that they were fired. Totsch then told Thomas that Godsey wanted to hire him back, but not Dennis Stice or Tom McKinney. Totsch also asked when the employees were coming back, and Thomas told him they would come back as soon as they settled the grievance. Thomas admitted that when both Totsch and Niese informed him that Godsey had not fired him such remarks did raise a suspicion on his mind that he had not been fired. Thomas then concluded his conversation with Totsch by telling him that, if Godsey wanted to have a meeting, they would discuss it .6 On or about May 17, alleged discnminatee Leslie Heinze returned to the plant to allow his cousin to fill out an employment application. On this occasion, Godsey told Niese to get his pad and paper ready and write down the contents of the conversation. Godsey then asked Heinze why they quit, and Heinze answered that they were not making good pay and they wanted $5 an hour. Then Godsey asked Hemze if the crew was going to either quit or walk out if they did not get the $5 an hour, and to this question Heinze replied in the affirmative. In its argument Respondent states and maintains that there was no intentional termination or discharge of the seven employees; that these employees quit or went on an economic strike or slowdown; and that, in any event, they were offered their jobs back - an offer which they all refused. Moreover, it is also pointed out by Respondent that Godsey is an able plant manager, and during this season in question he was attempting to open a new sales outlet for the entire farmer/rancher market, and his aim at the time was not only to keep production going through these seven employees, but to increase their number so that production could be increased; and, further, that the spring of the year being the beginning of the farm trailer peak sale season Godsey had every reason to want to keep produc- tion as high as possible. Final Conclusions As pointed out, the evidence in this record clearly established that Respondent had substantial difficulty in replacing the seven production employees as well as Shop Foreman Jim McKinney, and Godsey openly admits that these employees were an efficient crew and very valuable to him and that it took management several weeks to train new employees. In evaluation of the above, the General Counsel raises the question that, if Godsey did not fire these employees, why did he not call them up or in some way manage to get in contact with them in efforts to have them return to work? Moreover, as aforestated, Godsey specifi- cally told Shop Foreman Jim McKinney that at least two of those employees were never coming back. I am in agree- ment that the answer compels the conclusion that Godsey had fired the employees on March 11, and never intended to call them back to work. 6 Totsch said that when he asked Thomas why he had quit Thomas replied it was because he was "cheated out of the commission ," but then later in their conversation told Totsch he had not quit - "they all got fired " Totsch also ventured to state in his testimony that, during the week of March 5, McKinney informed him that if they did not get a raise they were going to quit 7 Respondent points out that the employees left no lunches in the Before this incident and events on March 11, there is no question that Godsey had met with his employees as a group without firing them, but on these occasions Godsey apparently was willing to talk to his employees so long as their remarks and suggestions related to production. As indicated, he agreed to purchase a new welder so as to increase production, and on another occasion he made a special trip to Respondent's plant in Texas in order to obtain information relative to a bonus plan - obviously again to help increase employees' productivity. Then in early March, Godsey became involved in a heated discus- sion with employee Stice and admittedly became very angry with him, but did not fire him. However, as also pointed out, there is little doubt that by the time he returned to the plant on the morning of March I I he was getting fed up with the employees' constant complaints, and, when they came to him on this occasion and asked management to eliminate the bonus plan and to give them a straight wage of $5, he became incensed at this idea and impulsively fired them without fully considering all the possible consequences to the future loss of production. Respondent solicited testimony to the effect that a number of the seven employees involved herein had been dissatified prior to March II with their working conditions, and for some time had been placing employment applica- tions elsewhere, and probably would have quit if they had been successful in finding better jobs. However, as also pointed out, this testimony does not establish that the production employees intended to quit on March 11, and it is clear that they only intended to quit working for Respondent if they obtained other jobs, and none of the seven employees had received any job offers from other employers as of March 11. Moreover, the fact that the employees did not wish to return to work for Respondent as of the date of the hearing before me, likewise, in no way supports any arguments that they had decided to quit on March 11, and this is so, even though they did not intend to return to work until they achieved some satisfaction with Godsey since they also initially intended to strike if, in fact, Godsey had refused the $5 an hour. But, as outlined previously herein, they never were able to reach the actual point of striking since Godsey summarily terminated them on March 11 before they even had an opportunity to bargain or strike.? There are also some indications and claims by Respon- dent to the effect that when at least two of these employees were told by Totsch and Niese that Godsey felt that they had quit, as aforestated, that they should have then investigated the situation to find out whether they actually had been fired, but since the employees did not do so there is a reasonable presumption that they must have quit. I agree that such an inference clearly cannot be drawn since the employees knew that Godsey had fired them, and the fact that others close to Godsey were now claiming that they quit did not change the fact in their minds, and, lunchroom on March 11, and from this fact argues that they did not intend to stay the entire day, and thereby again establishing that these employees intended to quit The evidence in this record is inconclusive as to the past practice of the employees in this regard , and the fact that they had in mind some sort of a stoke if Godsey did not negotiate with them ought also have altered their normal lunch plans and habits HALE MANUFACTURING CO. 13 moreover, no supervisor or any authorized representative of Respondent ever called any of the employees to ask that they return. I am also unable to give any significant evaluation of the incident on May 17 involving Heinze and his cousin, as aforestated. From my observations and for other reasons apparent herein, I am in agreement that Heinze has no actual knowledge of the labor law meanings of the terms "quit," "walkout," or "strike," and it was clear from his testimony that he was easily confused by such terms, as well as by compound questions. As pointed out, when he was first asked if he quit or ceased his own employment, he answered yes, but then claimed that all of the production employees were fired. At another point, Heinze stated he did not know the difference between "walkout" and "quit," and when he told Godsey on March I 1 that if management would not pay $5 an hour the employees were going to walk out, he meant they were leaving the building, and not that they were engaging in a "walkout" or "strike." In his brief the General Counsel stated the following, "It is quite evident to anyone who would read the transcript in this case that Respondent was trying to place a facade or smoke screen in front of the Administrative Law Judge in order to side track him from the real issues. This is evidenced by the attacks on the investigator, Peter Salm, as being involved in fraud, conspiracy, sloppy, shoddy, and embarrassingly weak investigation, attempts to indicate that investigator Salm should have talked to other witnesses (which Respondent himself did not call), attacks on Region 14 as well as the General Counsel, attacks on the discnmi- natees by calling them freeloaders, and in making reference to a bunch of guff from employees who have been less than polite, presenting voluminous evidence with respect to a paint gun, with respect to an alleged slowdown by employ- ees prior to March 11, with respect to the consumption of alcoholic beverages at the West Quincy plant, questions concerning production employees possibly taking applica- tion forms, and evidence with respect to employees fits of anger... . I am satisfied that I need not discuss these matters in any further detail inasmuch as Respondent was given a full opportunity to put in the record and litigate all such matters, and was also given the opportunity by me to request the appearance and testimony of Board Agent Peter Salm, but this request by Respondent was denied by the Board. However, I do point out that all of these rather unusual matters, now relied on by Respondent, were admittedly factors and circumstances not considered, discovered, alleged, or even known by Respondent until after the discharges of the employees here in question, and, therefore, could not have any possible basis for the actions taken by Plant Manager Godsey on March 11. In the final analysis, the employees involved herein certainly would not quit their jobs, thereby terminating all income, simply because they wanted a 25-cent-an-hour increase and the elimination of a bonus plan. Moreover, I agree that the words spoken by Plant Manager Godsey on 8 At one time Godsey had even fired his own brother, but instead of telling him he was fired or discharged , he told him, "I couldn't put up with it and he would just have to leave." Similarly , Totsch was discharged at one time without being specifically told he was fired or discharged Also, on March 111 could be reasonably interpreted by the employees to indicate that Godsey had fired them, even though Godsey did not directly and specifically tell the employees that they were fired or terminated. When Thomas asked Godsey on March 11 if he needed 13 cents to mail his paycheck to him, Godsey said, "No, I think I can handle it," as aforementioned. Clearly, if Godsey had not deemed or considered that he had actually fired the employees, when Thomas asked him the above question Godsey would have surely inquired immediately as to whether Thomas intended to quit, or in some other manner would have ascertained what the exact situation was, but Godsey did not do so because he knew the employees had been fired.8 Section 8(a)(1) of the Act prohibits an employer from interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. This section protects employees' concerted activities engaged in for the purpose of obtaining monetary benefits from their employers. Cf. Union Camp Corporation, Building Products Division, 194 NLRB 933 (1972), enfd. 436 F.2d 1136 (C.A. 5, 1972); KPRS Broadcasting Corporation, 181 NLRB 535 (1970). The protection accorded them under this section is not dependent upon the merit or lack of merit of their concerted activities. See The Singer Company, Climate Control Division, 198 NLRB 870, fn. 5 (1972). Nor to be entitled to such protection do employees engaged in concerted activities first have to make a demand upon the employer to remedy a condition they find objectionable. N.L.R.B. v. Washington Aluminum Company, Inc., 370 U.S. 9 (1962). Moreover, even assuming, arguendo, that the employees had gone on strike on March 11, the Respon- dent, by treating these seven employees as having quit, still violated Section 8(a)(1), since strikers remain employees and, of course, for an employer to terminate employees who concertedly go on strike also interferes with the employees' Section 7 rights. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action de- signed to effectuate the policies of the Act. A board cease- and-desist order is warranted in view of Respondent's discriminatory conduct. It has been found that Respondent has discriminated against employees Dennis Stice, Joe Thomas, Tom McKin- ney, Leslie Heinze, Michael Boltz, Larry Daggs, and Kenneth Rothweiler, by discharging them on March 11, 1976, because they engaged in concerted action for mutual aid and protection in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. It will therefore be recommended that Respondent offer them immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions, or, if such positions no longer exist, to substan- tially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their rights and privileges, and to make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against them by payment of a sum equal to occasions when Godsey would tell employees to go home because of a shortage of parts, he would specifically state the reason and tell the employees they should come back the next day or he would be calling the employees when the parts came in. 14 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that which they would normally have earned, absent the discrimination, from the date of the discrimination to the date of Respondent's offer of reinstatement, with backpay and interest computed in accordance with the Board's established standards.9 It will be further recommended that Respondent preserve and make available to the Board, upon request, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary and useful to determine the amount of backpay and the right to reinstatement under the terms of these recommendations. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this recommended Order. (c) Post at its place of business and plant copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 14, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ- ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. 9 F W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), Isis Plumbing & Heating Co, 138 N LR B 716 (1962) 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 ' 1 In the event 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 " ORDER 10 The Respondent, Hale Manufacturing Co., Inc., Taylor Missouri, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging and refusing reemployment to employees or otherwise discriminating in regard to their hire, tenure of employment, or any terms or conditions of employment because they have engaged in concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid or protection. (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights to self- organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain from any and all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer the seven employees named herein immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if such jobs no longer exist, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to their seniority, or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them 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, APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT discharge or refuse reemployment to employees or otherwise discriminate in regard to their hire, tenure of employment, or any terms or conditions of employment because they have engaged in concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid or protection. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to bargain collectively through a bargaining agent chosen by our employees, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any such activities. WE WILL offer Dennis Stice, Joe Thomas, Tom McKinney, Leslie Heinze, Michael Boltz, Larry Daggs, and Kenneth Rothweiler their former jobs or, if such jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent posi- tions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and WE WILL pay them for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of our discrimina- tion against them, together with interest thereon. HALE MANUFACTURING Co., INC.