Chrysler Corp.

486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Chrysler Corporation and Patrick J. LeBlanc. Cases 7-CA-11791 and 7-CA-12032 March 1, 1977 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On October 26, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Thomas D. Johnston issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, on December 6, 1976, Respondent filed exceptions 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 1 and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.3 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 as modified below and hereby orders that the Respon- dent, Chrysler Corporation, Trenton, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, as so modified: 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(b): "(b) In any other manner interfering with, restrain- ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act." 2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(b): "(b) Make Patrick LeBlanc whole for any loss of pay or other compensation he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him, to the extent it has not already been done, in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum , as set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962)." 3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the Administrative Law Judge. I Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record, exceptions, and Respondent's brief adequately present the issues and positions of the parties 2 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 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 544 228 NLRB No. 61 (1950), enfd. 188 F 2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. 3 In par 1(b) of his recommended Order, the Administrative Law Judge uses the narrow cease-and-desist language, "in any Ue or related manner" rather than the broad injunctive language "in any other manner," that the Board has long held to be proper in cases involving 8(a)(3) violations Springfield Dodge, Inc, 218 NLRB 1429 (1975) Accordmgly, we shall modify the recommended Order to require Respondent to cease and desist from in any other manner infringing upon employee rights. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT give our employees disciplinary layoffs because of their union or protected con- certed activities. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. WE WILL expunge from our records the disci- plinary layoff unlawfully given to Patrick Le- Blanc, and WE WILL make him whole for any loss of earnings or other compensation because we discriminatorily laid him off, plus interest at 6 percent per annum. CHRYSLER CORPORATION DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE THOMAS D. JOHNSTON, Administrative Law Judge: These consolidated cases were heard at Detroit, Michigan, on July 22, 1976, pursuant to charges filed by Patrick J. LeBlanc, an individual, in Case 7-CA-11791, on February 13, 1975, and in Case 7-CA-12032, on May 19, 1975, and an amended complaint issued on June 23, 1976. The amended complaint, which was further amended at the hearing, alleges that Chrysler Corporation (herein referred to as Respondent) violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein referred to as the Act) by meting out two 30-day disciplin- ary suspensions to Patrick LeBlanc because he engaged in activities on behalf of Local Union No. 372, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, (UAW) (herein referred to CHRYSLER CORPORATION as the Union) and other related concerted activities protected under the Act. Respondent in its answer filed on July 6, denies having violated the Act as alleged. The issues involved are whether Respondent gave two disciplinary suspensions to Patrick LeBlanc because of his union or protected concerted activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. An additional issue is whether proceedings under the grievance provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement between Respondent and the Union involving these suspensions precludes finding a violation under the Act. Upon the entire record in these cases and from my observation of the witnesses and after due consideration of the brief filed by Respondent,) I hereby make the follow- ing: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent, a Delaware corporation, with plants located throughout the United States including the State of Michigan and a plant located at Trenton, Michigan, which is the only plant involved in this proceeding, is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of automobile and related products. During 1975, a representative period, Respondent in the course of its operations, purchased and received goods and materials valued in excess of $1 million which were delivered directly to its facilities located in the State of Michigan, from points located outside the State of Michigan. It also manufactured, sold, and distributed products, valued in excess of $1 million, which were shipped directly from its facilities located in the State of Michigan to points located outside the State of Michigan. Based upon the foregoing evidence, which is admitted in Respondent's answer, I find that Respondent is an employ- er engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The parties stipulated, and I find that Local Union No. 372, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, (UAW), is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. A. Background Respondent operates a plant located at Trenton, Michi- gan, where it is engaged in the manufacture of 6- and 8- cylinder engines for use in Chrysler automobiles. Included among its supervisory personnel are Superintendent James i The General Counsel did not submit a brief. 2 Prior to January 6, 1976, Blair held the position of labor relations supervisor. 3 The parties stipulated and I find that each of these individuals are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. 4 Unless otherwise indicated the findings are based upon undisputed evidence contained in the record which I credit 5 The temperature was approximately 60 degrees 6 Labor Relations Supervisor Blair could not recall who brought the heat problem to his attention or being contacted more than once . Based upon his 487 DeKeyser, Employment Labor Relations Supervisor Art- hur Blair,2 Industrial Relations Supervisor Lloyd Andre, General Foreman John Corwin, and Foreman Charles Sawicki 3 Respondent employs approximately 4,300 employees at the Trenton plant. Its production and maintenance employ- ees are represented by the Union with which it has a collective-bargaining agreement. Patrick LeBlanc, who has been employed by Respondent since 1964, is presently employed in Department 528, which assembles 6-cylinder engines. He served as the Union's chief steward from about May 1973 until May 6, 1975, when he was elected as a union committeeman. As chief steward his duties were to repre- sent the employees in Department 528. These proceedings arose out of disciplinary layoffs given to LeBlanc in November 1974 and May 1975. B. The November Layoff The evidence establishes4 on November 12, 1974, em- ployees in the head assembly section of Department 528 complained to Chief Steward LeBlanc about the lack of heat in their area.5 LeBlanc reported their complaints to both General Foreman Corwin, who was over the depart- ment, and to Labor Relations Supervisor Blair. They informed LeBlanc they would take care of it .6 Blair contacted Plant Maintenance Supervisor Marke Bonde concerning the problem and it was his impression it would be corrected. LeBlanc's complaint to Corwin about the lack of heat was the first step in the grievance procedure.? During the next 2 days the employees continued to complain to LeBlanc about the lack of heat in their area, whereupon LeBlanc each day talked to both General Foreman Corwin and Labor Relations Supervisor Blair, who informed him they would get it corrected. On the morning of November 15 when the employees again complained to LeBlanc about the lack of heats he again talked to both Corwin and Blair who assured him it would be corrected. That same morning after talking to Ted Laflure, who was one of the employees that took care of heating problems, LeBlanc told Blair they did not have anyone working on the heat problem in Department 528 because he knew Laflure was the man who took care of it and Laflure had told him that to his knowledge that no one was working on the heat problem in that area .9 After talking to Blair, LeBlanc returned to the work line and asked the employees whether they would be willing to accompany him to the labor relations office to protest the lack of heat in their area.i° Approximately 12 or 13 of the female employees he talked to agreed. While complaining mabihty to recall these matters and absent denials by him I credit LeBlanc's testimony concerning his discussions with Blair about this problem r The collective-bargaining agreement contains a grievance procedure consisting of three steps and an appeal board s The temperature was approximately 63 degrees. 8 The evidence does not establish what, if any, action was being taken to correct the heating problem io LeBlanc's explanation for not filing a written grievance was because it would prolong getting the problem corrected. 488 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD about the lack of heat in their work area some of the employees had worn coats and sweaters while working. During their break period that day from I to 1:11 p.m., approximately 10 to 12 employees, along with Chief Steward LeBlanc, walked together in a group directly from their work area to the labor relations office carrying signs captioned, "We Want Heat," which were furnished to them by LeBlanc. Their walk to the office which lasted about 4 minutes took them through other departments including some where employees were working. Whenever other employees asked them what they wanted LeBlanc and the other employees with him would respond they wanted heat or would show them their signs. However, none of them stopped to talk to the other employees who continued working. Upon reaching the labor relations office, which was located apart from the production area, they entered and LeBlanc showed his sign to Blair and told him the employees were from the production area and they were suffering from the cold, wanted heat and were tired of waiting. According to both LeBlanc and one of the employees in the group, Lawanda Smith, other employees also told Blair they wanted heat . Blair's version was after hearing some noise outside his closed door the group came into his office at which time there was about 10 seconds of unintelligible discussion among them,[[ some quite loud, before LeBlanc spoke up about their wanting heat. Blair made no response to their statements and after about 30 seconds they left Blair's office and proceeded back to their work area in the same manner they came arriving there before their break period ended. During the period of a few minutes that the group was in the area of the labor relations office some employees who worked in the insur- ance 12 and personnel offices located across from Blair's office were not working but observing the group. Shortly after the employees returned to their area and resumed work the heating problem was corrected. Later that same day General Foreman Corwin informed LeBlanc he was being put on notice for disciplinary action because of what they had done. LeBlanc was subsequently given a disciplinary layoff from November 22, 1974, to December 23, 1974, with the period from November 30 to December 22 being waived. The written reasons given for the suspension were as follows: "Leading, taking part in a disruptive and disorder- ly demonstration and failure to follow the grievance procedure." 11 Smith also stated the employees were talking among themselves 12 Three employees worked in insurance 13 Included among Respondent 's plant rules for which disciplinary action may be taken are as follows: "7 Leading, instigating, supporting, or taking part in any strike, work stoppage or picketing in violation of the collective- bargaining agreement or in any slowdown or other improper interference with or restriction of operations. . . 14. Fighting , horseplay, or other disorderly, disruptive, or unduly conduct " 14 Sec. 5 of the collective-bargaining agreement which Andre contends LeBlanc violated by picketing provides in pertinent part as follows: The Union will not cause or permit its members to cause , nor will any member of the Umon take part in, any sit-down, stay-in or slow-down in any plant of the Corporation, or any curtailment of work or restriction of production or interference with production of the Corporation. The Union will not cause or permit its members to cause nor trill any The disciplinary layoff was also based in part upon LeBlanc's past disciplinary record, specifically, two prior written warnings, one verbal warning and one disciplinary layoff. LeBlanc was given the disciplinary layoff by Industrial Relations Supervisor Andre in the presence of Labor Relations Supervisor Blair, General Foreman Cor- win, and either the Union's Committeemen Harry West or Steward Ollie Foster. LeBlanc denied to them that they had done anything outside of their legal rights. According to Industrial Relations Supervisor Andre, who assessed the discipline against LeBlanc, he was disciplined for leading and participating in a disruptive demonstra- tion,13 circumventing the grievance procedure and picket- ing14 through the plant to the labor relations office. Andre denied LeBlanc's position as chief steward had anything to do with his discipline or that he was treated differently than the other six employees they were able to identify who had participated in the demonstration. While he directed that the other employees involved be issued verbal warnings LeBlanc's discipline, as theirs, was also based upon his past record.15 However, no evidence was presented to show that the verbal warnings were actually given to those employees and one of the participants, Lawanda Smith, denied she was ever disciplined or told by Respondent that she should not have done it. LeBlanc's disciplinary layoff was the subject of a griev- ance which was settled at the appeal board level between the Union and Respondent whereby LeBlanc received 40 hours' pay with the suspension remaining on his record. LeBlanc was never consulted about the terms of the settlement and upon being informed of the results by Union International Representative Jolly, he told Jolly that he was not satisfied and would not accept it. C. The May Layoff Chief Steward LeBlanc was a candidate for the position of committeeman in the union election held on May 6, 1975. As part of his campaign he distributed leaflets to employees. According to LeBlanc in April 1975, Superintendent DeKeyser who was over Department 528 informed him in the presence of acting Committeeman Ollie Foster that he was being put on notice if he passed out any literature during work hours he would be suspended. The leaflet referred to by DeKeyser was one which had been distribut- ed by LeBlanc and which not only appealed to employees member of the Union take part in any strike or stoppage of any of the Corporation's operations or picket any of the Corporations's plants or premises until all the grievance procedure as outlined in this agreement has been exhausted, and in no case over a matter on which the Appeal Board has power and authority to rule, and in no other case until the International Umon, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, within sixty (60) days after receiving the Plant Manager's decision, has notified the Manager of Labor Relations of the Corporation in writing that it has authorized a strike, specifying the grievances that are involved in the proposed strike, and negotiations have continued for at least seven (7) separate days on which meetings have been held after the Corporation has received such notice. 15 The work records of the other six participants reflect they previously had less, if any, disciplinary action taken against them than LeBlanc's records indicate. CHRYSLER CORPORATION 489 to support LeBlanc in the election but also made references to the ruthlessness of Superintendent DeKeyser and fore- men in Department 528 and Department 88 which would continue to be grieved and challenged. Under cross-exami- nation LeBlanc acknowledged the warning given him was not to distribute the leaflets to people while they were working.16 That same day Industrial Relations Supervisor Andre informed LeBlanc in the presence of the Union President Bob Smith that he would not be allowed to pass the leaflets out, whereupon LeBlanc informed Andre he would con- tinue campaigning in the same manner . Later that day Andre informed LeBlanc he had just read the leaflet and they were not going to allow him to pass them out anywhere in the plant or on their property. About April 24, 1975, LeBlanc filed a grievance with Respondent alleging that Foreman Sawicki was interfering with internal local union affairs by campaigning for the reelection of his opponent Harry West for committeeman. LeBlanc also discussed this matter with both General Foreman Corwin and Labor Relations Supervisor Blair. His grievance against Sawicki was subsequently granted. LeBlanc testified that on April 23 Foreman Sawicki, pursuant to his inquiry, denied he was campaigning for West and on April 24, he informed Sawicki he had filed a written grievance about his campaigning for West. Sawicki could not recall whether LeBlanc had talked to him before April 24 concerning his campaigning for West. However, on the morning of April 24 he was aware of the grievance and General Foreman Corwin had gotten on him about campaigning.17 Foreman Sawicki testified on April 24 about 2 p.m. he observed LeBlanc walk through his area. As LeBlanc approached the crib area where he was working, LeBlanc using profanity told him he had better watch his mouth because they were still taking off V-8 foremen. Shortly thereafter while talking on the telephone he observed LeBlanc who was about 15 yards away talking to a couple of other individuals.18 About a minute later he saw LeBlanc bend over some freshly poured cement in the area and using a push rod 19 write or mark something in the wet cement. When LeBlanc noticed Sawicki watching him LeBlanc quit writing, dropped the push rod in a garbage can, and left the area. After completing his telephone conversation Sawicki went over to the area where he had observed LeBlanc, and saw written in 4-inch letters in the wet cement the words "Vote For Pat." Sawicki then got Foreman Dodt from another department as a witness to the words in the cement. Sawicki got the push rod which had wet cement on one end out of the garbage can,20 and also got the contractor who had returned to pick up his tools to resurface the area. Supervisor Dodt corroborated Sawicki's testimony. Sawicki also testified that LeBlanc subsequently asked him why he had the area resurfaced. Upon explaining he 16 Rule 18 of Respondent's work rules provides as follows: "18 . Unautho- rized distribution of literature except such distribution during nonworking time in nonworking areas as is protected by the National Labor Relations Act." 17 Sawicki's explanation of the campaigning was when employee John Davis had asked him who he thought should win the election between LeBlanc and West , he expressed his opinion that he thought West would win. did not want the area defaced, LeBlanc's response was Sawicki knew he was going to deny it. LeBlanc denied either writing in the cement or talking to Foreman Sawicki about it. I credit the testimony of Foreman Sawicki which was partially corroborated by Foreman Dodt and find that LeBlanc, contrary to his denials, did write in the wet cement. Apart from my observations of the witnesses in crediting Sawicki rather than LeBlanc, LeBlanc on occa- sions contradicted his own testimony. On April 25, Industrial Relations Supervisor Andre informed LeBlanc in the presence of Willie Mays, who was the chairman of the shop committee, and General Foreman Corwin that he was being put on notice of being suspended for defacing company property and being given a 30-day disciplinary layoff. When LeBlanc denied any knowledge of the matter he was informed it was because he wrote in some wet cement. On May 5, Industrial Relations Supervisor Andre in the presence of Labor Relations Supervisor Blair and Chair- man Mays read a report informing LeBlanc he was being given a 30-day disciplinary layoff for defacing company property and throwing away the push rod. The written reasons given for the disciplinary layoff which was also based upon his past record contained the following state- ment : "Defacing company property and throwing away of other company property." 21 The disciplinary layoff was effective from May 7, 1975, to June 5, 1975. Andre informed LeBlanc that the layoff was scheduled to start on May 7 in order not to interfere with LeBlanc's opportunity to campaign in the Union's election. A grievance filed over LeBlanc's disciplinary layoff was subsequently withdrawn by the Union at the appeal board level. LeBlanc who was not consulted by the Union informed International Representative Jolly he was not concurring with his office's opinion about the grievance. LeBlanc further testified about the time he received his disciplinary layoffs in November 1974 and May 1975 that Industrial Relations Supervisor Andre made statements to him about they were going to get him. Andre denied making such statements and I credit him rather than LeBlanc for reasons previously stated. D. Analysis and Conclusions The General Counsel contends contrary to Respondent's denials that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by giving Chief Steward LeBlanc two disciplinary suspensions because of his union and protected concerted activities. 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. Section 8(a)(3) of the Act provides in pertinent part: "It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer . . . by 18 These individuals did not testify. 19 A push rod is a part used on the 6-cylinder engine. 20 The push rod was a usable part. 21 Respondent's plant rule 9 prohibits "Negligent or deliberate damage or destruction of property owned or held by the corporation or any employee, or the abuse or misuse or unauthorized use of any such property." 490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD discrimination in regard to hire and tenure of employment or any tern or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization...." To discriminate against an employee for engaging in activities as a union steward violates Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. See Star Expansion Industries Corporation, 164 NLRB 563, 565 (1967), enfd . 409 F.2d 150 (C.A. D.C., 1969). The evidence supra with respect to LeBlanc's November disciplinary layoff establishes it was based upon his conduct in initiating and participating in accompanying a group of employees in a walk to and from their work area to the labor relations office carrying signs captioned "We Want Heat" to protest the lack of heat in their work area where LeBlanc was chief steward after the employees had repeatedly complained to him for several days about the lack of heat and Respondent, despite the filing of a grievance by LeBlanc and its own repeated assurances to correct the problem, Respondent had failed to do so. Respondent's asserted reasons for laying off LeBlanc were for his taking part in a disruptive and disorderly demonstration, failing to follow the grievance procedure, and engaging in picketing while on the way to labor relations office. Respondent in its brief argues that Le- Blanc's conduct was unprotected under the Act and his layoff was therefore lawful, citing as authority such cases as Emporium Capwell Co. v. Western Addition Community Organization, 420 U .S. 50 (1975), and United Parcel Service, Inc., 205 NLRB 991 (1973). Contrary to those reasons given by Respondent for laying off LeBlanc, the evidence failed to establish that his conduct was either disruptive or disorderly ; that he engaged in picketing; or that he violated the collective- bargaining agreement by failing to follow the grievance procedure. Except for some loud talking among the group of employees during the few minutes they were in the labor relations office area, which was located apart from the production area, and that an unspecified number of insurance and personnel employees observed them for a few minutes rather than working, no evidence was prof- fered by Respondent to show that their walk to and from their work area to the labor relations office was either disruptive or disorderly . Not only do I find such conduct was insufficient to establish they were either disruptive or disorderly but the evidence establishes their walk was orderly and did not interfere with production. Concerning the contention that LeBlanc was engaged in picketing, I do not find that LeBlanc or the other employees by merely carrying signs as they walked directly to and from their production area to the labor relations office during their I1-minute break period or by showing their signs to other employees in response to their questions about what they wanted constituted picketing as prohibited by the collective-bargaining agreement. Insofar as it was contended that LeBlanc failed to follow the grievance procedure the evidence did establish that LeBlanc filed a grievance concerning the lack of heat in accordance with step I of the grievance procedure. Respon- dent initially granted the grievance by promising that the problem would be corrected and repeatedly reassured LeBlanc over a period of several days it would be corrected. Only after its failure to comply with its promises did LeBlanc and the employees go to the labor relations office for the purpose of pressing Respondent to correct the heating problem as promised. Under these limited circum- stances, I do not find that LeBlanc's action which was consistent with his duties and responsibilities as chief steward violated the grievance procedures of the collective- bargaining agreement. Additional evidence disproving Respondent's alleged reasons for laying off LeBlanc was the failure to establish that the other participants were also actually disciplined. Rather as the undisputed testimony of Lawanda Smith established, she was never disciplined for her part in the incident. Having rejected Respondent's defenses I find that LeBlanc, acting in his capacity as chief steward, by pressing the grievance to get the heat problem corrected as promised by Respondent, was engaged in both union and protected concerted activities and Respondent by giving him a 30-day disciplinary layoff effective from November 22, 1974, for engaging in such conduct thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. The cases relied on by Respondent in support of its position, which unlike the instant case, involved conduct violative of collective-bargaining agreements removing employees from the Act's protection, are clearly distin- guishable. Further, although LeBlanc's November disciplinary layoff was the subject of a grievance that was subsequently resolved between the Union and Respondent absent as here any showing that the requirements of Spielberg22 were met, I do not find any basis for honoring that decision 23 The remaining issue is whether LeBlanc's disciplinary layoff in May was also unlawful. Having credited Foreman Sawicki and finding contrary to LeBlanc's denials that LeBlanc did in fact deface and throw away company property in violation of the plant rules, I find that the General Counsel has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence as is his burden that LeBlanc was given the May layoff because of his union or protected concerted activi- ties. IV. THE EFFECT OF TILE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, found to constitute unfair labor practices occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Chrysler Corporation is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 22 Spielberg Manufacturing Company, 112 NLRB 1080 (1955). for the period he was discriminatorily laid off in November 1974 this amount 23 To the extent LeBlanc under that decision was actually paid his wages would be deducted from any backpay due. CHRYSLER CORPORATION 491 2. Local Union No. 372, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Work- ers of America, (UAW), is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By giving Patrick LeBlanc a 30-day disciplinary layoff effective from November 22, 1974, because of his union and protected concerted activities, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act. Accordingly, Respondent shall be ordered to expunge from its records the disciplinary layoff given to Patrick LeBlanc in November 1974 which was herein found to be unlawful and to make him whole, to the extent it has not already done so, for any loss of earnings or other compensation he may have suffered because of such discrimination against him with the payment of 6-percent interest per annum which shall be computed in the manner prescribed by the Board in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER24 The Respondent, Chrysler Corporation, Trenton, Michi- gan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Giving employees disciplinary layoffs because of their union or protected concerted activities. 24 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. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Expunge from its records the disciplinary layoff given to Patrick LeBlanc in November 1974 which was herein found to be unlawful. (b) Make Patrick LeBlanc whole for any loss of pay or other compensation he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him, to the extent it has not already been done, in the manner set forth in that portion of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze and determine the amount of backpay, if any, due under the terms of this Order. (d) Post at its Trenton, Michigan, facilities copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 25 Copies of said notice on forms furnished by the Regional Director for Region 7 shall, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea- sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the amended complaint be, and hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges unfair labor practices not specifically found herein. 25 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."