Hobart Corp.

HOBART CORPORATION 907 Hobart Corporation and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Imple- ment Workers of America (UAW). Cases 9-CA- 9700 and 9-CA-9759-1 March 18, 1977 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND WALTHER On December 14, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Maurice S. Bush issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, 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 and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions 2 of the Administrative Law Judge, only to the extent consistent herewith,3 and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein. 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 Hobart Corporation, Hillsboro, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in said recommended Order, as modified below: 1. Delete paragraphs 1(b) and (c) and insert the following as paragraph 1(b), relettering paragraphs 1(d) and (e) as paragraphs 1(c) and (d), respectively: "(b) Threatening to close its operations at the Hillsboro plant if the Union is successful in its organizational campaign and a strike is called by the Union." 2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the Administrative Law Judge. i We hereby correct certain findings of fact to which Respondent has excepted and which in no way affected the Administrative Law Judge's ultimate conclusions nor those of which we have adopted : ( 1) Employee Grant Bons attended only one union meeting prior to his discharge ; (2) Boris normally used the grinder machine 5 to 10 times per week, although on occasion he used the machine as many as 20 to 30 times per week. Respondent has also 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 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. In addition, the Administrative Law Judge frequently ascribed emotional feelings to certain persons and attributed certain conduct to emotional 228 NLRB No. 105 responses which are unwarranted by the evidence in the record . We agree with Respondent that such a technique is an inadequate substitute for finding facts based on the evidence in the record. However, the Administra- tive Law Judge's Decision contained a residuum of findings which are fully supported by the evidence on the record and which adequately sustain those of his conclusions which we are adopting. 2 Respondent excepted to the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that the Company's letter of October 2, 1975, provided additional, albeit indirect, evidence of the Company's knowledge of Bons' union activities at the time of his discharge. In reaching our conclusion to adopt the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that Respondent violated Sec. 8(aX3), we do not rely on this letter as any evidence of the Company's knowledge of Boris' union activities at the time he was terminated. 3 Respondent excepted to the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that it violated Sec. 8(aXl) when Supervisor Bill Mains threatened or interrogated employee Duane Scott concerning the latter's union activities and the Union's organizational drive. We find merit in that exception. Mains' question to Scott, "How are things going?" did not mention the Union, and, moreover, was isolated and innocuous in nature . Furthermore, Mains' statement to Scott, "I hope that you had not signed a (union ] card because that was one step further towards having the Union," was made in the course of a discussion about the Union which the employee initiated, and was merely a part of a casual and informal conversation in an atmosphere free of any coercive threats or interrogations. See Pepisi-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles, 211 NLRB 870, 872 (1974); and Stumpf Motor Company, Inc., 208 NLRB 431,433 (1974). APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing at which both sides had the opportu- nity to present their evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the law and has ordered us to post this notice and we intend to abide by the following. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees concern- ing their union activities. WE WILL NOT threaten to close Hillsboro plant if the Union is successful in its organizational campaign and if a strike is called by the Union. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Inter- national Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), or any other labor organization, by discharging employees, or in any other manner discriminating against them in regard to their hire or tenure of employment. 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 unions, to join, assist, or support the Interna- tional Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), or any other union, to bargain collective- ly through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in any other concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed by Section 7 of the National Labor 908 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Relations Act, as amended, or to refrain from any or all such activities. WE WILL offer to Grant Boris immediate and full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a result of his discharge. All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the above-named Union, or any other union. FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS Respondent Hobart Corporation is an Ohio corporation engaged in the manufacture of food processing machinery at its plant located at Hillsboro, Ohio. During the 12 months preceding the issuance of the complaint herein, which is a representative period, Respondent had a direct outflow of goods, in interstate commerce, valued in excess of $50,000, which it sold and caused to be shipped from its Hillsboro plant directly to points outside the State of Ohio. I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE INVOLVED LABOR ORGANIZATION HOBART CORPORATION DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MAURICE S. BusH, Administrative Law Judge: Respon- dent Hobart Corporation is a manufacturer of food processing machinery at a plant in Hillsboro, Ohio, where it employs approximately 170 employees. The issues in the case as clarified by the evidence are: (1) whether Respon- dent on October 1, 1975, discharged Grant Boris because of his union sympathies and activities; (2) whether Foreman Bill Edwards on October 1, 1975, threatened the aforemen- tioned Grant Boris concerning his union activities;1 (3) whether Foreman Bill Mains on October 13, 1975, interro- gated employee Duane Scott about the Union 's organiza- tional campaign; and (4) whether Respondent's multiplant director of manufacturing, Kenneth Allen, on October 15, 1975, at an employees meeting, threatened to close the plant if the Union got in. One of Respondent's defenses to its alleged discriminato- ry discharge of Grant Boris is that it had no knowledge of his union sympathies and activities at the time of his discharge. The consolidated complaint herein was issued on Decem- ber 15, 1975, pursuant to a charge filed in Case 9-CA-9700 on October 6, 1975, and pursuant to a charge filed in Case 9-CA-9759-1, copies of which were duly served upon Respondent. Respondent's answer denies the alleged unfair labor practices. The case was heard in Greenfield, Ohio, on March 2 and 3, 1975. The briefs filed by the parties on April 19, 1976, have been carefully reviewed and considered. For reasons hereinafter indicated, Respondent will be found in violation of the Act as alleged in the complaint, as amended. Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: This issue arises out of par . 5(a) of the complaint, as amended. Before the amendment, the complaint accused Foreman Edwards of "interrogating" I find that the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of Ameri- ca (UAW), is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background Facts: Issue of Company Knowledge of Union Activities of Alleged Discriminatee Grant Boris at the Time of his Discharge on October 1, 1975 The Hobart plant at Hillsboro, Ohio, the only facility here involved, is one of 24 plants owned and operated by Respondent Hobart Corporation. About half of the Com- pany's plants are organized ; the remaining plants, which include the Hillsboro plant, are unorganized. The Hillsboro plant commenced operations as a new plant in 1970 as a spinoff of a manufacturing operation formerly carried on at Respondent's Chicago plant. The Hillsboro plant produces food wrapping machinery which is designed to automati- cally wrap foods, chiefly meats, with cellophane. Some of these machines also weigh the food and stamp the wrappers with the weight and price. The Hillsboro plant employs about 175 workers in its operations, some 60 to 65 of which are women. There have been at least three attempts to organize the Hillsboro plant since its opening in 1970. The first attempt appears to have taken place in 1973; the second occurred in 1974; and the third in 1975, but none so far have been successful. The alleged unfair labor practices herein arises out of the UAW's attempt to organize the Hillsboro plant in the fall of 1975. During the latest attempt to organize the Hillsboro plant, the Union through handbilling sought to convince the unorganized workers at the Hillsboro plant that it would be in their best interests to be represented by the UAW because at other Hobart plants in Ohio, repre- sented by unions, the Hobart employees were earning under union contracts at least $2,000 more per year than the Hillsboro plant employees were earning for the same type of work. The first handbilling or distribution of union literature at the Hillsboro plant in, 1975 took place on Friday, Septem- an employee concerning his union activities . The amendment changed the word "interrogating" to "threatening." HOBART CORPORATION ber 19, at a gate located at the 200-yard of a 200-yard private drive to the one and only entrance and exit to and from the plant at the front of the plant. All persons entering or leaving the plant have to go through the gate as it is the only means of access to and from the plant which has no rear or side exits. The handbilling took place in the midafternoon of that day between the changes of the day and night shifts in order to enable the union representatives to handbill the employees ending the day shift or starting the night shift. The handbilling was done by Robert L. Bateman and Ivory Howard, UAW International represen- tatives, and Wilbur Bailey, president of UAW's Local 192, none of whom are employees of Respondent .2 Several other handbillings took place at the gate to the Hillsboro plant after September 19 and into the month of October. One of these handbillings took place on Wednes- day, October 1, 1975. This handbilling also took place in midafternoon between change of shifts. The October 1 handbilling consisted of three sheets. The first is captioned in bold letters, "Bulletin" and reads in part, "Compare your hourly rate with rates of Hobart workers who belong to a Union! You will see more than a $1.00 an hour difference. This means a minimum you are shorted: $8.00 a day .. . $2,040.00 a year!" The second sheet purports to show the union wage scales for employees at Hobart's Dayton, Ohio, plant. The third sheet purports to show the union wage scales for employees at one of Hobart's Troy, Ohio, plants. Respondent has several plants in Troy, all of which are under union contracts. Respondent's letterhead shows Troy to be its "World Headquarters." In addition to the handbilling at the plant, the Union held meetings, generally on Wednesday nights. The first meeting was attended by some eight employees who had been active in the Union's prior organizational campaign of 1974. The subsequent meetings embraced additional newly interested employees at the Hillsboro plant. One of these newly interested employees was the afore- mentioned alleged discriminatee, Grant Boris, age 21, who had been employed at the Hillsboro plant for about 3-1/2 years, prior to his discharge on October 1, 1975. He attended several union meeting. At the September 24 meeting he signed a union authorization card and took with him a supply of such cards for distribution among his fellow workers, more especially in the department where he was employed. He passed three of the cards out at the homes of fellow employees because as he stated, "They were afraid to sign cards in the shops," but three of the cards were passed out at the shop. In all he received signed cards from six of the eight employees in his own department and two from employees in other departments. He collected these signed cards at rest breaks, lunch hours, and after work. Four of the workers he contacted refused to sign cards. One of the employees Boris solicited was Ralph Barnes who worked in a different department not far from Boris' department. This solicitation took place at the plant on September 30, the day before Boris was discharged. During 2 The findings in the above two paragraphs are based on the unrebutted and wholly credited testimony of Bateman. The findings in the next two paragraphs below are also based on the unrebutted and wholly credited testimony of Bateman. 9 The findings in the above two paragraphs are based on Bons' unrebutted and wholly credited testimony Bons' umon authorization card, 909 the course of the solicitation Barnes agreed to try to get as many cards as possible signed. Boris thereupon gave Barnes a supply of the cards, one of which Barnes was to sign and return to Boris.3 The next day, October 1, at around 9 a.m., Boris was at his work station parallel to an aisle leading to the men's lavatory when he spotted Barnes walking down the aisle toward the lavatory to the left of Boris' station. After Barnes had walked down the aisle past Boris for some distance, Boris turned left toward Barnes and in a voice loud enough to be heard above the noise of the running machinery, asked him, "if he had signed his union card yet." Barnes yelled back that he would see Boris later. This quick exchange of question and answer took place almost adjacent to the vicinity of the tool room department which is on the opposite side of the aisle and to the right of Boris' machine. From his elevated platform in front of his machine, Boris had a clear and unobstructed view of the tool room department and the desk therein used by its supervisor, Clarence Walker.4 Boris testified that as he turned to his right to get back to his machine, after having put his question to Barnes, his position at the machine brought him in full sight of the tool room department where he unexpectedly saw Walker, the toolroom supervisor, standing in a seeming conversational huddle with Foreman Bill Edwards, Boris' immediate supervisor, and Foreman Chris Nakoff, all of whom have been with Respondent for a number of years through prior union campaigns. From his quick glance to the right, Boris testified he saw Walker standing at or near his desk in the toolroom and Edwards and Nakoff standing close by on the same aisle Barnes had just traversed to the men's lavatory. Immediate- ly after he had noticed the three supervisors, Boris turned back to his work on his machine without saying anything to the supervisors or they to him. Assuming for the moment the disputed fact that the three supervisors were actually present at the adjacent area of the toolroom at the very moment of Boris' shouted union card inquiry at Barnes, there is an additional issue as to whether the three supervisors were actually close enough to Boris at the time of his shout to Barnes as to have unavoidably overheard and noted Boris' hollered question. The three supervisors deny that they were present when Boris shouted his union card question to Barnes and further deny that they overheard such question by Boris to Barnes. Although Tool Room Supervisor Walker denies that he overheard Boris' shouted inquiry to Barnes, he admits that he is unable to deny that he was not at his desk when Boris, according to his testimony, shouted to Barnes about his union card. Walker was also unable to deny that Foremen Edwards and Nakoff were not with him at the time of the alleged incident because both Edwards and Nakoff were in and out of the tool room department, presumably for supplies for their departments. Foreman Edwards did not deny "being near Mr. Walker's desk" at the time here in bearing the date of September 24, 1975, is in evidence. Bons' attendance at the September 24 union meeting is corroborated by Bateman, the interna- tional's representative. 4 The findings in the above paragraph are based on composite testimony of Boris and Barnes which is unrebutted and wholly credited. 910 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD question, but testified that he "did not recall" hearing Boris hollering to Barnes about the union card. Nakoff flatly denies being present at the incident and overhearing Boris' question to Barnes. As aforenoted the above incident of Boris' shouted inquiry to Barnes took place on October 1, 1975, at around 9 o'clock in the morning. Somewhat later that same day Boris was discharged by Edwards, his foreman, with the approval of upper supervisors, because of a run-in he had later that same morning with the aforementioned Nakoff, foreman of another department, over Boris' necessary but alleged unauthorized use of one of the machines in NakofFs department in connection with essential work on a part Boris was machining in his own department, as will be more fully described in the section below. Prior to his discharge by Edwards, Boris' credited and undisputed testimony shows that he "always did get along with him [Edwards] fairly well." At the time of his discharge, Boris had a splendid reputation with the Company as a "100% performer" but management knew that Boris was disgruntled and unhappy over his rate of pay because he (Boris) believed that in his position as a milling machine setup operator he was entitled to receive $4.09 under the Company's own wage classifica- tion but was only getting $3.87 per hour. Boris made a half dozen or more efforts to get management to raise his pay to $4.09 per hour, but without success. I infer and find that this dissatisfaction over his hourly wage was a factor in causing Boris to become a strong union sympathizer and activist. On October 2, 1975, the day after Boris' discharge, the Company sent a letter to every employee in the Hillsboro plant acknowledging that, "Once again, the question of union representation has been discussed in our Plant and efforts are being made to talk you into signing a union card." The key sentence in the letter reads, "Our hope is that you will not sign a union card." Respondent denies that it had any knowledge of Boris' union sympathies and activities at the time of his discharge. Discussion and Conclusions As indicated, Respondent's first line of defense against its alleged discriminatory discharge of Boris is that it had no knowledge of his union sympathies and activities at the time it discharged Boris and that, therefore, his termination was due solely to an altercation Boris had that same morning with the aforementioned Nakoff, a foreman of another department, a description of which will be detailed in the next section of this Decision. I credit Boris' testimony that the tiff between himself and Nakoff took place after and not before the incident of his (Boris') shouted union card question at Barnes and find no creditable testimony in support of Respondent's contention that the quarrel between Boris and Nakoff took place before the incident of Boris' shout to Barnes . But even if the tiff between Boris and Nakoff did take place prior to Boris' shouted question to Barnes as contended by Respondent, that would not remove the question of whether Boris' S I do not credit Personnel Manager Michael Belles' testimony that the Company marled its October 2, 1975, letter to its employees because on that very day of October 2 and not pnor to that day, it had rece ived its first word discharge was caused primarily because of his quarrel with Nakoffor because of his union activities. From the record as a whole I find and conclude that Respondent had knowledge of Boris' union activities at the time of his termination. Based primarily on Boris' superior demeanor during his testimony, I fully credit Boris' testimony that Superintendent Walker and Foremen Ed- wards and Nakoff were unexpectedly present in the near vicinity of Boris' work station when Boris on the spur of the moment shouted his union card question at Barnes. I likewise fully credit Boris' testimony, based on his superior demeanor, that the three supervisors were physi- cally considerably closer to him (Boris) than he was to Barnes when he yelled his union card question to Barnes. Under these circumstances I find and conclude that the three supervisors because of their close proximity to Boris when he yelled to Barnes were in a position to easily overhear and did overhear Boris' shouted question to Barnes on whether he had signed a union card. I infer and fmd that these three supervisors, being fully aware of the Company's opposition to a union shop, were and are especially sensitive to the words "union card" or even the word "card," as uttered by employees because they as company supervisors had been through one or two prior company opposed union campaigns to organize the plant. For this additional reason I find that the three supervisors especially overheard Boris' yell to Barnes because it contained the attention arresting words "union card." I further find that the qualified denials of Supervisors Walker and Edwards about their presence near Boris' work station at the time of Boris' yell to Barnes lend further credence to Boris' testimony that they were present at that time and did overhear the union card question Boris put to Barnes. Foreman NakofFs flat denial that he was present when Boris hollered to Barnes or that he overheard Boris' yell to Barnes is not credited because the record shows that Nakoff has hard feelings against Boris because ofa quarrel between them later that same morning as will be shown in the next section ofthis Decision. As heretofore noted the Company in its October 2, 1975, letter to its employees, the day after Boris' discharge, admitted knowledge that "efforts are being made to talk you into signing a union card." Due to the proximity of the date of the Company's October 2 letter to that of Boris' discharge of the day before, I infer and find that the Company got this knowledge of card passing at the plant on October 15 from one or more or all of the three supervisors who had overheard Boris' shouted union card question to Barnes. I thus find that the Company's letter of October 2 is additional albeit indirect evidence of company knowledge through its supervisors of Boris' union activities at the time of his discharge. I further find that Respondent had knowledge of the Union's effort to organize its Hillsboro plant even before Boris' discharge on October 1, 1975, because the undis- puted and credited evidence shows that distribution of the Union's literature took place as early as September 19, 1975, which I find must have come and did come to the of union activity at the plant by reports from supervisors whose names Belles could not even remember. FJOBART CORPORATION 911 attention of the Company due to the fact that the distribution took place at the one and only entrance and exit to the plant and must have been observed by at least some supervisors. I find, however, that there is no evidence of company knowledge of Boris' involvement in union activity prior to the date of his discharge on October 1. Having found that Respondent had full knowledge of Boris' union activities at the plant on the day and at the time of his discharge, the next section will deal with an altercation that took place a little later that same morning between Boris and Foreman Nakoff, and whether that altercation was the real cause for Boris' termination, as contended by Respondent. B. Altercation Between Boris and Foreman Nakoff.• Issues as to Real Cause for Boris' Discharge and Threat by Foreman Edwards to Boris Because of his Union Activity The record shows that both Boris and Foreman Nakoff, of another department, are short tempered and quick to anger. Personnel Manager Belles has had complaints from employees that Nakoff is quick tempered, but as far as the record shows Nakoff has not been reprimanded for that fault. Boris some 2 years before his discharge when he was still a teenager became resentful of the bossing he was receiving from a fellow worker, Christine Curl, and told her to "bug off," or stop molesting him, which so upset her that upon her complaint, Boris was given a verbal warning for "Bad language, and other bad gestures and actions around other employees." Some 2 weeks before his discharge, Boris, upon being wrongly accused of making some 50 pieces of scrap on the preceding day shift , by the 23-year old department's night shift foreman, Steve Cox, angrily responded, "What do you know about it, you son-of-a- bitch?" The aforementioned day shift foreman , Edwards, who was present during the argument, orally warned Boris that if he heard any more "swearing at a foreman" he would have to take action against Boris. The testimony of Personnel Manager Belles shows that rough and abusive language is common among the employ- ees at the plant but that prior to Boris' discharge no employee had been discharged because of abusive lan- guage. Boris' "Employee Reprimand" card from the personnel records of the Company shows that he was discharged on October 1, 1975, for the following reasons, "Swearing at Foreman Chris Nakoff. Also has sworn at Steve Cox. Employee has received written warnings concerning this subject several times .."s The statement, "Also has sworn at Steve Cox" in the reprimand has reference to the finding above where Boris, having been wrongfully accused by Night Foreman Cox of making scrap , angrily told Cox, "What do you know about it, you son-of-a-bitch?" The third reason stated on the reprimand card, to wit: "Employ- ee has received written warnings concerning this subject several times" is not corroborated by exhibits showing the alleged written warnings and is accordingly not credited for that reason and also because it is not supported by any credible testimony. Respondent contends that the immediate cause for Boris' discharge was the abusive and obscene language he used in an altercation he had with Foreman Nakoff just prior to Boris' discharge. The altercation between Boris, age 21, and Nakoff, age 25, took place under the following circumstances. Boris worked in the plant's drills and mills department as one of some eight employees under Foreman Edwards. Nakoff was foreman of the plant's sheet metal and welding department where he has supervision of about 12 employ- ees. In his work as milling machine setup operator, Boris frequently found it necessary to use a machine known as a Hammond Grinder for purposes of deburring metals but as his department does not have any grinding machines he is obliged to take any piece of metal that needed deburring to other departments in the plant that have the Hammond Grinder. Of the two or three other departments that have Hammond machines, the most accessible department is Nakoff's where there are three Hammond Grinders. Three other setup operators in Boris' department likewise used the grinders in Nakoffs department. Boris' credited testimony shows that on the average he used the Hammond machines in Nakoff's department from 20 to 30 times per week. In the morning of October 1, shortly after Nakoff had overheard Boris shout his union card question at Barnes, Boris took pieces of steel called parallel bars into Nakofl's department for deburring on one of the Hammond ma- chines. There he found Barnes on a temporary assignment from his regular job on the "paint line," at the machine called the Big Hammond. Boris asked Barnes if he could use his machine and Barnes agreed that he could have the machine in a moment or two while he took time off from his machine to hand file some burrs off of metal that could not be machine deburred. Just as Boris took over the machine, Nakoff came by and angrily demanded what Boris "was doing back there." This was the first time Nakoff had challenged Boris' use of a grinder in his department although Nakoff admits that he had seen Boris use the Hammonds in his department numerous times as appears from the following exchange at the hearing: JuDOE BusH: But the fact is you saw him numerous times in your department using the grinding machine? THE WrrNEss: Yes. JUDGE Bum All right, and this was the first time you ordered him to stop using it; isn't that correct? THE WrrNEss: Yes. Taken aback by Nakoff's hostility, Boris explained that he was using the Big Hammond to debur parallel bars because there were no deburring machines in his own department. Nakoff thereupon heatedly accused Boris of interfering with the production of Barnes who was not making the expected production standard or quota that day and peremptorily ordered Boris "to get the hell out of 6 Nakoff testified that Boris, during this exchange with Nakoff, bumped into him (Nakoff) and challenged him with the taunt, "Do you want to fight?" I do not credit this testimony because none of this alleged conduct by Bons is shown as the reasons or causes for his discharge in the Company's above-described "Employee Reprimand." 912 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD there." This in turn so angered Boris that he told Nakoff "to blow it out of his ass." Deeply offended, Nakoff walked away in a huff. It took Boris a moment or two to finish his deburring of the still engaged parallel bars . He then immediately returned to his own department to complete the setup of the machine he was working on.7 When Boris got back to his department , Foreman Edwards told him that Nakoff had just been there and had seemed greatly upset and asked Boris what caused Nakoff to be so upset. Boris "explained to him what had taken place and how I felt on the situation," that is, that Nakoff had jumped him for using the Big Hammond Grinder in Nakofl s department and that they had quarreled over what Boris believed was his right to use the machine as his own department did not have any grinding machines. Edwards thereupon sharply reprimanded Boris for not having asked his permission to leave their department for the purpose of using a grinder in some other department. However, the evidence shows and I find that there was a long-established practice in Foreman Edwards' department for the setup operators therein to leave the department at will whenever necessary to use a grinder in another department without asking Edwards' permission and that Edwards, as foreman of his department, which has only about eight employees, was well aware of this.8 I according- ly find that Edwards' reprimand of Boris was the first time he had jumped a setup operator in his department for not asking his advance permission to leave the department to use a grinder machine in another department. The record further shows by the testimony of Plant Manager Ralph Waldren that there is nothing in the Company's employees handbook that prohibits an employ- ee from going from his own department to another to do an essential part of his assigned job or requires him to seek permission of the foreman of the other department to come into his department and do work that is essential. Edwards, who is 48 years of age, ended his above- described conversation with young Boris by telling him "Buddy, you better watch what you're doing with this union business." 9 The following occurred after Nakoff had ordered Boris out of his department and after Nakoff in an agitated state of mind had seen Edwards?° Nakoff then contacted Max Pierre, manager of manufacturing, in his office, explained what had happened between himself and Boris, and complained that Boris had sworn at him and called him a 7 The above findings are based on the composite testimony of Bons, Nakoff, and Barnes after careful and full consideration thereof. Any testimony which conflicts with the above findings is not credited. s I base the above finding on Bons' credited testimony. I discredit Edwards' reply, "Not to my knowledge" to the question put to him by Respondent's counsel , "Do other operators in your department do that [i.e., leave the department to use a grinding machine without Edwards' advance permission [T' Respondent did not call any of the other operators to corroborate Edwards' testimony that it is not common practice for employ- ees in his department to leave the department without his knowledge to use grinders in other departments. 9 The above finding is based on Bons' credited testimony . Respondent in its brief does not cite any rebuttal or denial by Edwards that he made the above statement to Boris and I have been unable to find any such rebuttal or denial in the transcript of Edwards' testimony. But even if denied, I would not credit the denial because there is an unmistakable ring of truth in the substance of Bons' several versions under both direct and cross-examina- tions of the statement made to him by Edwards which Bons honestly stated name.1' Within minutes Edwards and Plant Manager Waldren came into Pierre's office and Nakoff repeated his complaints to them against Boris. Waldren, thereupon, instructed Edwards to find Personnel Manager Belles, "get the facts and get it taken care of." Pierre then left his office accompanied by Nakoff and Edwards. They stopped in front of the desk of the aforementioned Supervisor Walker near Boris' station. Edwards then called Boris over to them. Confronted about the incident he had with Nakoff, Boris told the group, "If we had grinders of our own, we wouldn't have to go to other departments to grind stuff." After some discussion Pierre ordered Boris back to his machine.12 Boris' credited testimony shows that during the course of his above confrontation by the three supervisors, Pierre pointed his finger at Boris' face and told him he was "going to be hunting another job or walking the street." Edwards then contacted Personnel Manager Belles at his office where he related to Belles the angry dispute that had arisen between Nakoff and Boris over Boris' right to use one of the grinders in Nakofl's department in the necessary performance of Boris' work for the Company and that during the course of the dispute Boris used abusive and obscene words at Nakoff. Nakoff also directly reported the same incident to Belles who prior to his conferences with Edwards and Nakoff had had instructions from Plant Manager Waldren to investigate the facts and take appro- priate action. Minutes later Foreman Edwards directed Boris to collect his tools and follow him to the office of Personnel Manager Belles. In Boris' experience such an order was virtually always a prelude to a discharge. When Edwards and Boris arrived at the personnel office, they found Belles and Nakoff waiting for them. The decision to fire Boris had already been made subject to anything Boris had to say in his own defense. At Belles' direction, Edwards, Boris' own foreman, told Boris that he was going to be discharged because in the dispute he had had with Nakoff over his right to use a grinder machine in Nakofl's office, he had (as testified to by Belles) "called Nakoff a name" and had "swore at him." Belles then asked Boris if what Edwards had just said was true. Boris, depressed by this sudden turn of affairs against him and knowing that management already knew his defense that he had the right to use the grinder machine in Nakofl's department, merely replied, "I can't understand why I can't get along with people." 13 that he could not remember verbatim . I find that the composite of the several versions clearly show that Edwards' threat to Bons was connected with his union activities . Earlier findings above show that Edwards was one of the three supervisors who only moments earlier that same morning had overheard Bons shout to fellow worker Barnes about a union card. 10 Nakoff did not tell Edwards what had occurred between himself and Bons over Bons' use of the grinder in his department but merely asked Edwards to get Bons out of his department. 11 Nakoff testified that he also complained to Pierre that Bons had deliberately bumped into him and challenged him to a fight. I again note that I do not credit this testimony because none of this alleged misconduct by Bons is shown as reasons or causes for Bons' discharge in the Company's above-described "Employee Reprimand" card on Boris. 12 The above findings are based primarily upon Nakofis credited testimony. 13 The findings in the above paragraph are based on the credited composite testimony of Belles and Bons. HOBART CORPORATION 913 Belles thereupon accepted Edwards' recommendation for Boris' discharge. The termination took place at 9:45 a.m. This was within the hour of the time Supervisors Edwards, Nakoff, and Walker had overheard Boris' shouted question at fellow worker Barnes on whether he had signed a union authorization card.14 At the hearing Personnel Manager Belles described Boris as a "100% performer." In a house letter to employees called "Hobart Happenings," dated May 10, 1974, Boris was congratulated for a cost reduction proposal which led to a 67-percent increase in his production time. On August 14, 1975, about 6 weeks prior to his discharge, Boris received a commendation in writing for a further "Cost Reduction Proposal" from Kenneth Allen, Respondent's director of manufacturing at the Company's "World Headquarters" in Troy, in which Allen stated, "Elimination of unnecessary cost will always be, a most essential ingredient in `job security' for all of us." Beneath the typed letter, Allen added in pen and ink, "Thank you for another nice contribution." [Emphasis supplied.] Boris also received a medal in connection with the cost proposal for which he was commended by Allen. Boris' reputation with the Company as an innovator of cost reduction proposals was not discussed at the time the decision was made to terminate Boris. Discussion and Conclusions The above findings show that Respondent discharged Boris, a conceded 100-percent work performer and recog- nized innovator of cost savings procedures, within the hour after it discovered that Boris was passing out union authorization cards to fellow workers at the plant. The record further shows that within minutes after Respondent's discovery of Boris' union activities at the plant, a quarrel developed between Foreman Nakoff and Boris when Nakoff challenged Boris' right to make brief use of a grinding machine in Nakofl's department which was essential to Boris' work for the Company as a machine setup operator. Respondent does not claim that Boris was discharged because of his asserted right to use the machine but claims only that Boris was terminated because of the obscene words he directed at Nakoff which the findings show took place after Nakoff peremptorily ordered Boris "to get the hell out of there." From the record as a whole I find that Respondent seized upon Boris' offensive language to Nakoff as a fortuitous pretext for Boris' discharge as a coverup for his discharge because of his aggressive union activities as discovered by Respondent only about 20 minutes or so prior to the altercation between Nakoff and Boris. The complexity of the findings herein compel the above conclusion. Foreman Nakoff was one of three supervisors who overheard Boris when he shouted his union card question at fellow worker Barnes. Prior to that time Nakoff' had never challenged Boris' right to use as needed the grinders in his department although he had seen Boris make use of the grinders on numerous occasions. Minutes after his discovery of Boris' union activity, Nakoff for the first time jumped Boris for his use of the Big Hammond Grinder in his department with his angry and provocative question, "What are you doing back there?" When Boris responded that he was necessarily using the machine because his own department did not have a grinder, Nakoff brushed Boris off with the claim that Boris was interfering with the already low production of Barnes by taking the machine from Barnes although the evidence shows that Barnes had willingly relinquished the machine to Boris because he had in any event to take time off from the machine to do some hand filing of burrs from steel pieces that the machine would not take. It was only when the hot tempered Nakoff ordered Boris, "to get the hell out of there," that the equally quick tempered Boris told Nakoff, "to blow it out of his ass," but he nevertheless quit the machine as ordered as quickly as he could finish getting the still engaged pieces of steel deburred and then immediately left Nakofi's department. In this context and since Boris was using the grinder strictly as part of his expected duties to his employer as a machine setup operator, Boris' hot response to Nakoff's order, "to blow it out of his ass," while censorable, is humanly understandable under the circumstances. There is no evidence that Respondent discussed Boris' outburst to Nakoff in the light of their respective conflicting rights to the use of the machine before Boris was dis- charged. Considered in that light, Boris' insistence upon his right to use the machine was an act of loyalty to his employer and perhaps entitled to greater priority than Nakoff's because any interference with Boris' job of setting up machines for production would appear to have a more adverse affect on plantwide production than merely taking a man off the grinder for a few minutes in Nakoff's department in order to give a setup operator like Boris a chance to more quickly finish up the setup of a machine for production. The above circumstances, together with the admitted fact that Boris was a 100-percent work performer and innovator of cost savings procedures, show that the true motive for Boris' termination was not his hot but provoked words at Nakoff, but the Company's discovery some 30 minutes earlier that Boris was engaged in soliciting union authoriza- tion cards from the employees at the plant. As shown in the findings, Edwards, Boris' foreman, was also one of the three supervisors who had overheard Boris' shouted union card question to Barnes which as shown occurred only moments before the altercation between Nakoff and Boris took place. When Boris informed Edwards about the altercation, Edwards warned Boris, "Buddy you better watch what you're doing with this union business." This is a further indication that Boris was terminated because of his union activities and not because of the abusive reply Nakoff provoked when he ordered Boris "to get the hell" off the grinding machine where Boris was engaged in necessary and expected work for the Company. The peculiar and unorthodox conduct of Foreman Edwards towards Boris, his subordinate, is another strong indication that Boris was terminated because of his union 14 The finding that Edwards recommended Boris' discharge is based on Belles' credited testimony. Any testimony by Edwards to the contrary is not credited. 914 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD activities, as discovered by Edwards and Foreman Nakoff only about a half an hour or so before Boris' discharge. The record shows that there had been a fairly good working relationship between Foreman Edwards and Boris. The record further shows that Edwards, of course, knew better than anyone else that Boris was a 100-percent performer and that he had received commendations for his cost savings proposals, including the proposal that led to a 67- percent increase in Boris' productive time. He also knew that it was absolutely essential for his machine setup operators, like Boris, to make use of deburring machines in other departments in connection with their work because Edwards' own department did not have any grinding machines. Under these circumstances most supervisors would have fought tooth and nail to keep a superior performer such as Boris from being fired and would have stood up to and fought Nakoff for blocking Boris from his necessary use of one of his grinding machines, notwith- standing the hot words Boris threw at Nakoff when Nakoff ordered Boris "to get the hell" out of his department. But instead of Edwards coming forward to the defense of the beleaguered Boris, the record shows that shortly after Nakoff had ordered Boris "to get the hell" out of his department and before Boris was fired, Edwards not only did not come to the defense of Boris but on the contrary engaged in the extraordinary conduct of recommending the discharge of Boris, probably his top performer, because of Boris' angry language to an equally hot headed supervisor of another department who was attempting to stop Boris from his necessary duty of performing essential work on one of the machines in that other department. I fmd that Edwards, in not coming to Boris' defense and in recom- mending his discharge, was carrying out the threat he made to Boris minutes after the fracas between Nakoff and Boris when Edwards told Boris, "Buddy, you better watch what you're doing with this union business." I infer, find and conclude that within a half hour after Respondent learned of Boris' union activity at the plant, Foreman Edwards recommended Boris' termination for the pretextual reason of his swearing at Nakoff, either to curry favor with top management or at the direction of top management, in order to make it appear less evident that the decision to terminate Boris, seemingly originating from the recommendation of a mere foreman, was unrelated to Boris' union activity at the plant. The discharge of Boris, the innovator of the cost savings procedures, was clearly contrary to the conviction ex- pressed by Respondent's overall director of manufacturing, Kenneth Allen, in his commendation of Boris from the Company's "World Headquarters" in Troy, Ohio, for Boris' most recent cost reduction proposal, that the, "Elimination of unnecessary cost will always be a most essential ingredient in `job security' for all of us." In summary, I fmd and conclude that Respondent through the conduct of its agent, John W. Edwards, in threatening employee Grant Boris concerning his union activities, is in violation of Section 8(axl) of the Act, iS As heretofore noted, Respondent contends that the immediate cause for Bons' discharge was his fracas with Foreman Nakoff. As it is found that Respondent used that fracas as a pretext for terminating Bons because of his union activity, Respondent's secondary reason for Bons' discharge that he called the night shift foreman a "son-of-a-bitch" when he was unjustly substantially as alleged in the complaint, as orally amended at the hearing. I further find and conclude that Respondent discharged Grant Boris because of his activities in behalf of the Union and to discourage membership in and activities on behalf of the Union, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, as alleged in the complaint.15 C. Findings: Issue of Interrogation of an Employee by Foreman Main Duane Scott is employed by Respondent at its Hillsboro plant as stockroom clerk. He works under the direct supervision of Foreman Bill Main. On or around October 10, 1975, Foreman Main looked Scott up in the stockroom and started a conversation on, "How things were going." Although Scott is not sure that the asked question included the word "Union," Scott testified that he was certain that the question put to him really meant, "How things were going with the Union." Scott's testimony shows that at the time Main asked him the first quoted version of the question there was "a lot of talk going around the plant about signing cards and maybe getting enough people to bring the thing up to a vote." The contents of the conversation Foreman Main initiated with Scott as reflected in Scott's testimony clearly shows that the conversation started by Main pertained to the union activity at the plant. This is evident from the following excerpts from Scott's wholly uncontradicted and credited testimony, as Main was not called by Respondent as a witness herein, to wit: I expressed my opinion to him [Main] that I hadn't made any decision one way or the other; that I realized there were two sides to the story-management's side and the union's side. I told him there had been a couple of meetings down at the Union Hall. I hadn't been to any of them, but I said to him that I wouldn't care to go just to listen to hear that side since I was going to hear management's side from the meetings that would possibly come up, and make a decision from that. n * s s s We were talking about the whole union deal in general. He made the comment that he had been in union shops before and the comment that some people wanted the union and after it got in, they were sorry they got it because they weren't satisfied; and that he hoped I hadn't signed a card because that was one step further towards having the Union. [Emphasis supplied.] Discussion and Conclusions It is again noted that Scott's above-credited testimony is uncontradicted as Respondent did not call Foreman Main as a witness to rebut Scott's testimony. accused of making excessive scrap on the preceding day shift, cannot stand as a defense for Boris' termination because at the time of the incident about 2 weeks prior to Bons' discharge, Boris was not discharged for that incident but merely reprimanded by Foreman Edwards. HOBART CORPORATION 915 Respondent's sole defense is that the conversation initiated by Main did not relate to union activity and that if there were any interrogations therein by Main on the subject of union activity, the interrogations were not coercive in nature as required by established law. Both of these contentions are without merit because any reading of Scott's testimony shows that the only matter discussed in the conversation initiated by Foreman Main was the union activity at the plant and that the conversation must have had and did contain interrogations which were inherently coercive in nature because Scott found it necessary to assure Main that he had not made up his mind about whether he favored the Union or not and also because Main expressed a hope that Scott "hadn't signed a card because that was one step towards having the Union." From the testimony of record I find and conclude that Respondent through its agent Foreman Main engaged in coercive interrogation of employee Scott about the Union's organizational campaign in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, as alleged in the complaint. D. Findings: Issue of Threat To Close Plant if the Union got in The management of the Hillsboro plant held a voluntary employee meeting at the plant on October 15, 1975, on the subject of the union campaign then going on to organize the plant. About 35 employees attended the meeting. The meeting was conducted by Plant Manager Waldren as assisted by the aforementioned Mr. Pierre, resident manag- er of manufacturing operations at the Hillsboro plant, and the aforementioned Mr. Allen, overall director of manufac- turing from the home office in Troy, Ohio. Among the employees in attendance at the meeting were Helen Hertenstein, LeRoy Smith, and the aforementioned Duane Scott. Smith and Scott testified to an alleged threat to close the Hillsboro plant by Mr. Allen in answer to a statement or comment made at the meeting by Helen Hertenstein who was not called and did not testify herein. Mr. Allen likewise was not called and did not testify herein. During the question-and-answer period, Smith testified that Helen Hertenstein made a statement at the meeting which he was insistent was a statement and not a question. Under direct examination, Smith's first version of Herten- stein's statement was "if we [employees ] should get a union in ... and if they [employees ] went on strike, the it [Company ] would close the plant." When asked by government counsel to repeat the "lady's question again," Smith tartly replied that, "She didn't ask a question, she made a statement." In his second paraphrasing of the lady's statement Smith paraphrased her statement as follows, "if we should get a union in and we should go on strike, then they [Company] could close the plant." Smith testified that his own quick response to Hertenstein's statement was, "No, they [Com- pany] can't do this." Smith's credited testimony shows that manufacturing director from the Company's world head- quarters at Troy, Ohio, Allen, thereupon stood up and stated that, "He could close the plant anytime he got ready." Smith replied, "No, he couldn't." Allen answered that Smith "was feeling sorry" for himself. The cross- examination did not shake Smith's testimony as to the statement Helen Hertenstein made at the meeting as paraphrased above or to Allen's statement that "he could close the plant any time he got ready." Employee Scott, who also was in attendance at the meeting, substantially corroborated Smith's testimony as to what was said at the meeting by Mrs. Hertenstein, Smith, and Allen as set forth above. Like Smith, Scott made it clear that the statement attributed to Mrs. Hertenstein was not a question but a "comment" and that she had commented that, "if the Union were to come in, they're [the Company] are liable to close up the plant." It is again noted that Respondent did not call Mr. Allen who is the overall director of manufacturing of a number of Respondent's plants to contradict or rebut the above- described testimony of Smith and Scott which I fully credit. Discussion and Conclusions Respondent's defense is that General Counsel "failed to demonstrate with any certainty just what was said" at the employee meeting and that in Respondent's view all that Allen said or meant to say was that in the event of a strike the Company would temporarily close down the Hillsboro plant in order "to avoid possible violence and to facilitate negotiations" and that Respondent had a protected legal right to do so. The trouble with this defense is that the phrase "to avoid possible violence and to facilitate negotiations" is based on the testimony of Robert Bernd, director of industrial relations for all of Respondent's plants, who was not present at the Hillsboro plant employee meeting here in question, and not on anything Mr. Allen stated to the employees at that meeting as uncontestably described above. Allen's own words to the employees at the meeting were that he "could close the plant anytime he got ready." Although the employee meeting at the Hillsboro plant was open to questions by the employees and answers from the company representatives concerning the Union, the record is clear that Mrs. Hertenstein did not ask Mr. Allen or any other company representative at the meeting what would happen to the plant if the Union got in and declared a strike. Instead she merely stated her own independent view or fear that if the Union got in and the employees went on strike, the Company would or could close the plant. I infer and find from this remark and the responding remarks of Smith and Allen that she meant, and was understood by all at the meeting to mean, that she feared that if the plant became unionized and a strike occurred, the Company would or could close the plant down permanently and if this should occur all of the employees at the Hillsboro plant would lose their jobs and that it would be difficult to find other jobs in a town as small as Hillsboro. I also infer and find that Mrs. Hertenstein by her remark was thus presenting an argument most helpful to the Company's opposition to the Union. This is apparent from the fact that when Smith arose to challenge Hertenstein's comment about the possibility of the plant being aban- doned in the event of a strike, company executive Allen jumped to his feet and emphatically stated in support of Mrs. Hertenstein's comment, that he "could close the plant any time he got ready." 916 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD I find Allen's quick response to the assembled employees in support of Mrs. Hertenstein's expressed fear of plant closure was a veiled threat of a possible permanent closing of the plant in the event the plant became unionized and a strike occurred which the parties were unable to settle because of economic differences. If Allen meant to say that in the event of a strike, it would be a company policy to close the plant for the duration of the strike, it would have been a very simple thing for him to have said so directly. But instead Allen chose to tell the assembled employees that he "could close the plant any time he got ready." The record shows that Allen meant exactly what he said because when Smith challenged his statement, Allen shot back at Smith the rejoinder that Smith "was feeling sorry" for himself which clearly conveys the thought that now that Smith knew that Allen had the authority to close the plant at "any time he got ready," Smith was feeling sorry for himself at the then realizable prospect of losing his job altogether if Allen should decide to permanently close the Hillsboro plant in the event of an economic strike. In summary I find and conclude that Respondent through its agent Kenneth Allen , one of its top executives, threatened to cease its operation at the Hillsboro plant if the Union was successful in its organizational campaign, in violation of Section 8(axl) of the Act, substantially as alleged in the complaint. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The above-named Respondent is an employer en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) of the Act. 2. The above-named Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discriminatorily discharging Grant Boris, Re- spondent engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(aX3) of the Act. 4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(axl) of the Act. 5. 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 engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(axl) and (3) of the Act, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the purpose of the Act, including the offer of reinstatement of Grant Boris, with backpay computed in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), 16 N.L R.B. v. Express Publishing Company, 312 U.S. 426 (1941); N.L.R.B v Entwistle Mfg. Co, 120 F.2d 532 (C.A. 4, 1941); Consolidated Industries, Inc, 108 NLRB 60 (1954), and cases cited therein. 17 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 with interest added thereto in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). Because of the character and scope of the unfair labor practices found, I shall recommend a broad cease-and-desist order.16 Upon the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in this proceeding, I make the following: ORDER 17 The Respondent, Hobart Corporation, Hillsboro, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Threatening its employees concerning their union activities. (b) Interrogating its employees about the Union's organi- zational campaign. (c) Threatening to close its operations at the Hillsboro plant if the Union is successful in its organizational (d) Discouraging membership in the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agriculturallmplement Workers of America (UAW), or any other labor organiza- tion, by discharging employees or in any other manner discriminating against them in regard to their hire or tenure of employment. (e) In any other manner interfering with , restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaran- teed them under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Grant Boris immediate and full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss he may have suffered by reason of his unlawful discharge 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, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to determine the amount of backpay due under this Order. (c) Post at its plant in Hillsboro, Ohio, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 18 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 9, after being duly signed by Respondent's repre- sentative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order , what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. findings, conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 18 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."