Parker Hannifin Corporation

PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION 263 Parker Hannifin Corporation and United Steelwork- An election was held at Respondent's Huntsville, ers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC. Case 10-CA- Alabama, plant on September 12, 1979.1 The 15175 Union 2 lost the election, but did not file objections, November 16, 1981 and the Regional Director for Region 10 issued a Certification of Results of the Election in that case. DECISION AND ORDER Barbara Blanchard was a leading union adherent during the election campaign, and Respondent BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND knew of this leadership role. Blanchard arranged ZIMMERMAN and attended union meetings, distributed and col- On August 14, 1980, Administrative Law Judge lected authorization cards, and wore union para- Irwin H. Socoloff issued the attached Decision in phernalia during the election campaign.3 Indeed, this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel Respondent interrogated Blanchard concerning her filed limited exceptions and a supporting brief, the union activities. Supervisor Carter questioned her Charging Party filed a statement adopting the posi- about how many signed authorization cards the tion of the General Counsel, and Respondent filed Union had obtained, and why she wanted a union a brief in answer to the General Counsel's excep- in the plant. Blanchard testified that Carter interro- tions. gated her every few days until the date of the elec- Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the tion. It was this testimony of Blanchard's that the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- Administrative Law Judge credited as "crisp, de- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- tailed and convincing," and based on it he found thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. Respondent unlawfully interrogated Blanchard as The Board has considered the record and the at- alleged. tached Decision in light of the exceptions, briefs, Respondent did not terminate Blanchard until and the statement of position and has decided to after the September election. On October 13, Plant affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Manager Still gave Blanchard a "final warning Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recom- notice," which stated that "any further instances mended Order. like this will result in termination." The "further instances" mentioned in the notice referred to an ORDER attachment, which recited two separate events, on Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor October 11 and 12, respectively, when Supervisor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- Thomas observed Blanchard at employee Bishop's lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended machine, and requested her to return to her work Order of the Administrative Law Judge and area. The attachment also noted that, although in hereby orders that the Respondent, Parker Hanni- her two previous performance reviews Blanchard fin Corporation, Huntsville, Alabama, its officers, had been warned about spending too much time agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action away from her work station, her supervisor was set forth in the said recommended Order. still required to remind her to remain at her work station.4 Almost 2 weeks later, on October 25, Su- MEMBER JENKINS, dissenting: pervisor Carter told Blanchard on three separate I agree with the majority that Respondent violat- occasions to leave Bishop's machine and said to ed Section 8(a)(l) of the Act by interrogating em- her, "Let's go." Blanchard remained for a moment ployees concerning their union activities and by to continue the conversation, at which time Carter threatening an employee with discharge if he coop- told her she was terminated. Carter made a report erated with a Board investigation. Contrary to my of the incident, which he gave to Still who then colleagues, however, I believe that Respondent's met with Blanchard and Carter, and discharged reasons for issuing a written warning to employee Blanchard for continually staying away from her Barbara Blanchard and for discharging her were machine. pretextual, and that Respondent discriminated All dates are in 1979 unless otherwise indicated. against Blanchard because of her union activities, :United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC. in violation of Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act. 3 Respondent suggests that Blanchard's union leanings were confusing because, near the end of the campaign, she wore "vote no" buttons The Administrative Law Judge found, and I However, Blanchard continued to wear prounion stickers and buttons. agree, that the General Counsel established a prima even while wearing the "vote no" buttons. facie case that Blanchard's discharge was unlawful. I The two incidents mentioned in the final warning notice were report- ed by Thomas, who was not Blanchard's usual supervisor. The "previous The background facts are as follows. reviews" noted in the warning will be discussed below 259 NLRB No. 23 264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD These facts show, as the Administrative Law Blanchard's "final warning" notice, which checked Judge found, that Respondent knew of Blanchard's off "personal conduct" and "indifference," not activities and harbored union animus which was "production" as the problem, and which was la- particularly directed toward Blanchard through beled a "final" warning notice.5 Respondent's repeated interrogations of her. These Blanchard was singled out in more ways than findings notwithstanding, the Administrative Law one. Thus, although Blanchard was timed by Judge concluded that Respondent rebutted the Thomas to see how long she remained away from General Counsel's prima facie case by showing that her station, no other employee had ever been Blanchard was not discharged for union activity, timed.6 Further, Blanchard was not the only em- but because of her refusal to stay at her post and ployee to report back to her position after lunch on her defiance of supervisory orders to return to the date of discharge. The Administrative Law work. In so doing the Administrative Law Judge Judge himself found that at least five or six em- found no evidence of disparate treatment or pretex- ployees were still away from their work station tual reasoning for the warning or her discharge. some 7 minutes after the break bell had rung. Yet Analysis of the relevant facts leads me to the con- not one other employee was warned or otherwise clusion that the Administrative Law Judge incor- disciplined for such absence. rectly decided this issue. These facts clearly indicate that Respondent has Blanchard worked for Respondent from January seized on these October incidents as a pretext to rid 1977 until her discharge at the end of October itself of an outspoken union adherent. Its long tol- 1979. She worked under Jack Pruitt in the chucker erance of Blanchard's behavior prior to the union department as a machine operator until April 1979, campaign7 and its disparate treatment of Blanchard when she became an automatic bar machine opera- indicate that its proffered reasons for issuing the tor under Carter's supervision. It was in April that warning and for discharging Blanchard were not Blanchard contacted the Union and shortly thereaf- the real ones. In addition, Respondent's union ter in May that Carter began interrogating her on a animus can hardly be overlooked. Respondent in- regular basis. The evidence reflects that Blanchard terrogated Blanchard about her union activities and was generally a good employee, save for one defi- the sympathies of other employees. Particularly ciency. Thus, in various performance reviews in telling is Respondent's naked threat to employee 1978 and 1979, Blanchard's supervisors noted that Howard, whom Blanchard had requested to give a she needed to stay in her work area more. Howev- statement to the Board, that he would be dis- er, these reviews also indicate that if Blanchard's charged if he cooperated with the Board's investi- "problem" was longstanding, it was also long toler- gation. Respondent's knowledge of Blanchard's ated. Pruitt verbally warned Blanchard when she union activities, and the above course of conduct, was in the chucker department about being away establishes the General Counsel's prima facie case. from her machine. Carter also warned her when As demonstrated, Respondent's defense is clearly she became an employee in the automatic depart- pretextual. Accordingly, I would find that Re- ment. And both supervisors spoke to her on other spondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the occasions to remind her to return to her machine. Act. Yet no discipline was ever instituted against her. Yet no disciplinewase er institutedagainsther. It should be noted these three notices are the only ones issued by Re- Indeed, Respondent had a very liberal policy on spondent from September 1978 to October 1979. A termination notice breaks; whatever the rule Respondent had on the was issued to an employee in October 1978, but this was for a probation- issue, the practice was for employees to take fre- ary employee who had been previously terminated and rehired. He was discharged for being away from his work station and producing 1,760 quent breaks as long as they were of short dura- scrap parts. This situation is quite different from that of Blanchard. tion; i.e., 5 or 10 minutes. Furthermore, there was 6 Pruitt stated that he had trouble in his department in February 1979 never any discipline imposed on any employee for with employees' being away from their machines too long. He stated that he told them to stay closer to their machines, but there is no indication breaking any company rule on breaks or other mat- that employees received warnings or that they were timed. Carter also ters. Indeed, the only warning notices besides the testified that he had ordered employees to return to their jobs, and that one issued to Blanchard also were issued in Octo- only Blanchardasver Motors, Inc., 238 NLRB 1379 (1978). ber 1979. Both of these were for employees in the chucker department and indicated "production" as DECISION the problem area. Each employee had been warned on August 24 about production and staying at his STATEMENT OF THE CASE machine on that date, and the two notices issued IRWIN H. SOCOLOFF, Administrative Law Judge: Upon thereafter indicated the same problem existed and, a charge filed on October 31, 1979, by United Steelwork- if there were no improvement, "disciplinary action ers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, herein called the will be taken." These notices contrast sharply with Union, against Parker Hannifin Corporation, herein PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION 265 called Respondent, the General Counsel of the National tions of her supervisors to return to work. Also at issue Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for is whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Region 10, issued a complaint dated December 10, 1979, Act by interrogating Blanchard concerning her union alleging violations by Respondent of Section 8(a)(3) and membership, activities, and desires and the union mem- (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Rela- bership, activities, and desires of her fellow employees; tions Act, as amended, herein called the Act. Respond- threatening Blanchard that it would move its facility if ent, by its answer, denied the commission of any unfair the employees opted for union representation and threat- labor practices. ening employee Stanley Howard that he would be dis- Pursuant to notice, hearing was held before me in charged if he cooperated with the Board's investigation Huntsville, Alabama, on June 2 and 5, 1980, at which the of the Blanchard discharge. The General Counsel further General Counsel and Respondent were represented by contends, and Respondent denies that when, on October counsel and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, 13, 1979, Respondent issued a written warning notice to to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce Blanchard, some 12 days before her discharge, it did so evidence. Thereafter, the parties filed briefs which have for unlawful antiunion reasons. been duly considered. Upon the entire record' in this case and from my ob- B. Facts2and Conclusions servations of the witnesses, I make the following: I. The 8(a)(1) allegations FINDINGS OF FACT Barbara Blanchard was employed by Respondent from I. JURISDICTION January 1977 to October 1979 when, as noted, she was discharged. Until March 1979, she worked as a machine Respondent, an Ohio corporation, has an office and operator in the chucker department under the supervi- place of business in Huntsville, Alabama, where it is en- sion of Jack ruitt. Thereafter, Banchard performed as a sion of Jack Pruitt. Thereafter, Blanchard performed as a gaged in the manufacture and sale of steel fittings. machine operator in Respondent's automatic department During the year ending December 31, 1978, a representa- where Billy Carter served as her supervisor. 3 tive period, Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, sold and shipped from its Huntsville, In April 1979, Blanchard and her brother contacted a Alabama, facility finished products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the State of ee meetings. During the course of the ensuing represen- Alabama. I find that Respondent is an employer engaged tation campaign, Blanchard attended union meetings and distributed authorization cards to her fellow employees. in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and In all, she collected 50 to 100 signed cards. At work, she (7) of the Act. wore some six or seven union buttons, for a period of I1. LABOR ORGANIZATION months, on her shirt and attached to her purse. She also wore a Steelworkers bumper sticker across her rear.' United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, is a Blanchard testified that, early in May 1979, Carter labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of asked her how many signed cards she had obtained. He the Act. further inquired as to why she wanted a union in the ill. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES plant. According to Blanchard, Carter, thereafter, and until the election, asked her those same questions every A. Background few days. Carter, in his testimony, denied that he ever questioned Blanchard with respect to her union activities On July 18, 1979, the Union filed a petition with the or desires. Board, seeking an election among Respondent's Hunts- According to Blanchard's further testimony, in early ville, Alabama, plant employees (Case 10-RC-11835). October, following the election, she visited General Thereafter, the Board, on September 13, 1979, conducted Manager Don Gerosa to protest the contents of her most an election which was lost by the Union by a vote of recent employee review. When Gerosa refused to discuss 230-to-84. Postelection objections were not filed and, ac- that matter before first speaking to her supervisor, Blan- cordingly, on September 21, the Regional Director for chard stated that that was one reason a union was Region 10 issued a Certification of Results in that case. needed in the plant, so that employees who had com- Some 6 weeks after the election, on October 25, 1979, plaints would be heard. At that point, Blanchard testi- Respondent discharged employee Barbara Blanchard, fled, Gerosa stated "something to the effect of, 'I've been one of the principal supporters of the Union during the wanting to talk to you about why you've been wanting a preelection period. In this proceeding, the General union in here."' After further discussion, "He went on to Counsel contends that Blanchard was fired because of her union activities, which were well known to Re- 2 The factfindings contained herein are based on a composite of the spondent, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. Re- documentary and testimonial evidence presented at the hearing. Where spondent asserts that it discharged Blanchard solely be- necessary to do so in order to resolve specific testimonial conflict, credi- cause of her proclivity to leave her work area for bility resolutions have been set forth supra. causeof time andofherprocl t her defiance of the instruc- 3 The complaint alleges, and the answer admits, that Pruitt, Carter. and lengthy periods of time and her defiance of the Instruc- Respondent's general manager, Don Gerosa, were, at all times material herein, supervisors within the meaning of Sec. 2(11) of the Act. Respondent's post-hearing motion to amend, in certain respects, the ' For the final 2 weeks of the campaign, in addition to the union insig- transcript of proceedings, is hereby granted. nia. Blanchard wore a "Vote No" button. 266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD remind me of the large plot of land down in Jackson- threatening employee Howard, through Supervisor ville, Alabama, that Parker-Hannifin had just bought and Pruitt, with discharge if he cooperated with a Board in- was building a plant on and told me it was three times vestigation. the size of the place that we have here in Huntsville, and finally ended by saying that Parker-Hannifin in Hunts- 2. The Blanchard discharge ville wouldn't ever become union." Gerosa, in his testi- In light of Blanchard's activities on behalf of the In light of Blanchard's activities on behalf of the mony, confirmed the fact of the foregoing meeting with mony, confirmed the fact of the foregoing meeting with Union, as detailed, infra; Carter's repeated interrogations Blanchim by Blanchard. Thus, hemaking the remarks attributestified that he did not ask of her concerning those activities and the testimony of h yBlanchard why she supported the Union or stated or im- several of Respondent's officials that they knew, during plied that the Huntsville plant would be moved if the the course of the campaign, that Blanchard was a leading lUnion gained representation rights. Gerosa explained union adherent, I conclude that the General Counsel has Union gained representation rights. Gerosa explained established a prima face case of unlawful discharge that construction of the new Jacksonville plant had established a p rima facie cas I am entirely persuaded by begun in the fall of 1978 and completed by August 1979, the Act. However, as I am entirely persuaded by when that plant became operational. Further, according the evidence offered by Respondent in defense, as set to Gerosa's uncontradicted testimony, during that entire forth below, that Blanchard was discharged for job relat- period, and during the election campaign itself, he re- ed, and not union related, reasons, I further conclude peatedly assured the unit employees that, while certain that her firing was not violative of the statute. equipment would be moved from Huntsville to Jackson- Respondent permits its machine operators to take ville, not a single job would be lost at Huntsville. work breaks as they wish, for purposes of visiting the Employee Stanley Howard testified that on November bathroom, the soda and candy machines, or to say 8 he informed Supervisor Pruitt that Blanchard had re- "hello" to another worker. Several of Respondent's wit- quested that he, Howard, provide a statement to the Na- nesses testified that the employees have been instructed tional Labor Relations Board. Howard asked Pruitt if he to limit such breaks to a duration of 5 minutes. Blan- thought it would be wise to do so. According to chard herself described the time limitation as "a reason- Howard, Pruitt stated "that if it was him, he wouldn't able period" and "maybe about five minutes." Yet, nu- volunteer any information. He'd wait until I got subpoe- merous employee and supervisory witnesses in this case naed because I'd get fired." Pruitt's version of the con- testified that, not only did Blanchard take many more versation was quite different. He testified that, when breaks than the other employees but that those breaks Howard first approached him about the matter, he told often lasted for periods of 30 minutes and longer. Em- the employee that he, Pruitt, could not get involved in it. ployee Curtis Blackwell, who frequently was required to Pruitt then sought guidance from Gerosa and he testified oversee Blanchard's machines while she was "on break," that 10 minutes after his first conversation with Howard credibly testified that "there's been days where she was he approached the employee and told him that if he, gone four hours out of eight." Thus, in the months pre- Howard, volunteered to sign a statement chances were ceeding the discharge, Blackwell complained to his su- he "might have to go to court." Pruitt denied issuing a pervisor, Billy Carter, that he, Blackwell, was spending threat to Howard but, rather, claimed that he told him so much time keeping watch over Blanchard's machines, that it was "up to him to do what he wanted." while she was away "on break," that he did not have As Blanchard, Howard, Carter, Pruitt, and Gerosa all time to adequately perform his own duties.5 appeared to me to be testifying in a truthful manner, I Performance reviews of Blanchard for the years 1978 am unable to resolve the foregoing conflicts in testimony and 1979, issued by her supervisors, uniformly contained by resort to demeanor findings. Blanchard's testimony a notation that the employee was not spending sufficient concerning the alleged interrogations by Carter was time in her work area. Early in 1979, while she still crisp, detailed, and convincing and I credit it over the worked in the chucker department, Blanchard received a general denial of Carter. On the other hand, Blanchard verbal warning from her then supervisor, Pruitt, for fail- testified in much more vague fashion concerning her ure to stay at her machine. In the spring of that year, meeting with Gerosa. In light of Gerosa's uncontradicted after transferring to the automatic department, she re- explanation of the context of the conversation, his denial ceived a verbal warning from Supervisor Carter for that, during this postelection meeting, he stated or im- being out of her work area for long periods of time. In plied that the plant would be moved has the ring of addition, according to the credited testimony of Pruitt truth. I likewise credit his testimony denying that he and Carter, they found it necessary frequently to speak questioned Blanchard concerning her reasons for having to Blanchard concerning her proclivity to stay away supported the Union. Finally, I credit Howard, an appar- from her work area and to instruct her to return to her ently disinterested witness, with respect to his testimony job duties. Carter further testified that Blanchard often concerning the November 8 incident. Thus, I find refused to accept such directives. Blanchard, in her testi- Howard's version of that event clearer and more con- mony, conceded that there were occasions when she vincing than the vaguer narration of Pruitt. Based on the foregoing, I find that Respondent, by its J Although machines in the automatic department are not hand-fed, the supervisor, Carter, violated Section 8(aXI) of the Act by presence of the operators is essential as they are required to check the interrogating Blanchard concerning her union activities finished products for defective parts. If the machine is running such parts, the operator must sharpen the tools or make other adjustments. Operators and sympathies and those of her fellow employees. Re- must also watch the machines to prevent damage to same as they may, spondent further violated that section of the Act by among other things, catch on fire. PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION 267 would not, when so instructed, return to her work sta- among the several States and tend to lead to labor dis- tion, but would, instead, "ask to finish my business." putes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free Carter credibly testified that in the months preceding flow of commerce. her discharge Blanchard exhibited a heightened tendency to remain away from her job duties. Thus, in September, v. THE REMEDY Carter had to speak to Blanchard as many as two or Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair three times in a day about this subject. That month, he labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, gave her another verbal warning for the same offense. I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist Employee Mark Bishop, a machine operator in the therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed chucker department, testified that, during this period, to effectuate the policies of the Act. Blanchard would visit him, at his work station four or five times per night, and stay for periods of up to 20 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW minutes, or until instructed by a supervisor to return to her machine. This practice continued until the night she 1. Respondent Parker Hannifin Corporation is an em- was discharged. ployer engaged in commerce, and in operations affecting On October 13, Blanchard received a "final warning commerce, within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and notice" from Plant Manager Jack Stall after Stall was in- (7) of the Act. formed, by substitute Supervisor James Thomas, that 2. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, Blanchard was staying away from her work station, at is a labor organization within the meaning of Section Bishop's machine, thus causing employee Blackwell to 2(5) of the Act. spend his time performing her job functions. On October 3. By interrogating an employee concerning her union 25, during the first half of the shift, Carter instructed membership, activities, and desires, and the union mem- Blanchard on three separate occasions to leave Bishop's bership, activities, and desires of other employees, Re- machine and return to her work area. Immediately after spondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the the lunchbreak, when Carter, for the fourth time that meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. day, found Blanchard at Bishop's machine, he ap- 4. By threatening to discharge an employee if he coop- proached her and said, "let's go." She, nonetheless, con- erated with a Board investigation, Respondent has en- tinued her conversation with Bishop, at which point, gaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Carter told her that she was terminated. 6 The supervisor Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. made notes of the occurrences of that day and delivered 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce same to Stall. At 10 p.m. that night, Stall met with Blan- within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. chard and Carter, read to Blanchard the notes that 6. Respondent has not otherwise violated the Act, as Carter had prepared, and discharged the employee for alleged in the complaint. continually staying away from her machine. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and conclusions of In light of the above, I conclude that the General law, and upon the entire record, pursuant to Section Counsel's prima facie case has been rebutted and that 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recom- Blanchard was warned, and then discharged not because mended: of her union activities, but because, as Stall testified, of her consistent refusal to stay at her work area and do her ORDER S job and her defiance of the instructions of her supervi- sors to return to work.'7 Contrary to the contentions of The Respondent, Parker Hannifin Corporation, Hunts- the General Counsel, the record does not contain evi- ville, Alabama, its officers, agents, successors, and as- dence showing that Blanchard was treated differently signs, shall: than other, similarly situated, employees. Nor does the 1. Cease and desist from: nature of Blanchard's dereliction, or the manner in (a) Interrogating its employees concerning their union which Respondent chose to deal with same, suggest that membership, activities, and desires, and the union mem- it was merely seized upon as a pretext. The discharge bership, activities, and desires of other employees. was, thus, not violative of the Act. (b) Threatening to discharge employees if they cooper- ate with a Board investigation. IV. THE EFFECTS OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES (C) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- UPON COMMERCE straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, their rights under Section 7 of the Act to engage in con- above, occurring in connection with its operations de- certed activities for their mutual aid and protection, or to scribed in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and refrain from such activity. substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce 2. Take the following affirmative action deemed neces- sary to effectuate the policies of the Act: ' At that time, about 7 minutes after the bell had rung, signifying the end of the lunchbreak, some five or six employees had not yet returned In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the to their work stations. Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the find- ' In reaching this conclusion, I do not credit Blanchard's assertion that, ings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in after receiving her final warning notice, she "tightened up considerably" Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and on her practice of leaving her work area, prompting Carter to tell her become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto that she had made improvement. shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (a) Post at its facility located in Huntsville, Alabama, APPENDIX copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 9 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional NOTICE To EMPLOYEES Director for Region 10, after being duly signed by Re- POSTED BY ORDER OF THE spondent's representative, shall be posted by it immedi- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by Re- An Agency of the United States Government spondent for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu- ous places, including all places where notices to employ- WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees con- ees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be cerning their union membership, activities, or de- taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, sires, or the union membership, activities, or desires or covered by any other material. of other employees. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge our employ- writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what ees if they cooperate with a Board investigation. steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner in- terfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in 9 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United the exercise of their rights guaranteed them by Sec- States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by tion 7 of the Act. Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION