Nucor Corp.

NUCOR CORPORATION Nucor Corporation, Vulcraft Division and United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC. Cases I l-CA-6584 and I 1-CA-6655 June 20, 1977 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND MURPHY On March 25, 1977, Administrative Law Judge Thomas R. Wilks issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Nucor Corpora- tion, Vulcraft Division, Florence, South Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE THOMAS R. WILKS, Administrative Law Judge: A hearing in this consolidated proceeding was held on October 4 and 5, 1976, at Florence, South Carolina, based upon a charge filed against Nucor Corporation, Vulcraft Division, by United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO- CLC, herein Union, in Case I l-CA-6584 on May 21, 1976, as amended on June 15 and 25, 1976, and in Case I -CA- 6655 on July 20, 1976, and a complaint issued by the Regional Director in Case I 1-CA-6584 on July 22, 1976, and an order consolidating cases, consolidated complaint and notice of hearing issued by the Regional Director on August 31, 1976, as amended at the hearing, which alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(aXl) of the Act by telling its employees that they did not receive a scheduled wage increase because of the pendency of a representation petition filed by the Union and/or because employees voted for the Union in a Board-conducted election, or otherwise engaged in union activity; by, in fact withholding a scheduled wage increase for the foregoing reasons; by interrogating an employee as to his and other employees' 230 NLRB No. 17 union sympathies; and that Respondent violated Section 8(aX)(1) and (3) of the Act by discharging employees Nathaniel Graham and Herbert Bines because of their union or other concerted activities protected by the Act. An answer was duly filed which denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. Respondent also moved to limit the taking of evidence as to matters other than the allegations concerning the wage increase which it argued was rendered moot because of an offer to settle that portion of the case relating to the wage increase which had been refused by the Regional Director, but which was remedied by the retroactive implementation of a wage increase and the posting of a notice to employees drafted by the Respondent. The General Counsel opposed the motion on the grounds that evidence of 8(aX 1) conduct was necessary and relevant to the issue of Respondent's motivation with respect to the alleged discriminatory discharges, and because the posting of Respondent's notice was itself an act of interference with employees' rights by virtue of the language utilized therein. The Respondent's motion was denied. Posthearing briefs were submitted by the General Counsel and the Respondent. On the entire record in this case, including my observa- tion of the witnesses, their demeanor, and consideration of briefs submitted by the parties, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT AND THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Nucor Corporation, Vulcraft Division, herein Respon- dent, is a Maryland corporation engaged in the fabrication of open-web steel joists at a plant in Florence, South Carolina. During the 12-month period, which is representative of its operations, Respondent in the course of its operations shipped materials valued in excess of $50,000, directly to points outside of the State of South Carolina. During the same period, Respondent received materials valued in excess of $50,000, from points directly outside the State of South Carolina. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. The Union is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 1. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Factual Background On February 24, 1976, the Union filed a petition for certification of representative with the Regional Director in Case I l-RC-4149. On April 22, 1976, an election was conducted by the Regional Director in the production and maintenance unit at the Florence plant. There were approximately 250 employees in that unit. A majority of ballots were cast for the Union. On April 28, 1976, Respondent filed objections to the election. The Regional Director issued his report on June 3, 1976, wherein he 297 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD recommended that the objections be overruled. On August 12, 1976, the Board issued its Decision which adopted the Regional Director's report and which certified the Union as exclusive bargaining agent for employees in the unit set forth therein. The Respondent has maintained for at least 8 to 10 years a policy of reviewing and granting annual wage increases to all employees in May or June. In May or June 1976, all employees, except those in the production and mainte- nance unit involved in the representation case, received a 12-percent wage increase. The Respondent's operations manager, Robert T. Garrison, testified that the raise was withheld from the unit employees because of the Respon- dent's understanding that the state law forbade it from implementing any unilateral wage increases without negoti- ations with the Union. The uncontradicted testimony of several leadmen reveals that at a meeting of leadmen in the office of Vice President and General Manager R. N. Vanderkief, they were told by Vanderkief that they could expect receipt of the annual wage increase in May or June. During that meeting, Vanderkief also stated that he was aware of the Union among employees in the plant, but he did not say anything about the Union beyond that observation. The meeting occurred on or about March 1, 1976. At a series of company sponsored suppers for various production lines held at a local restaurant in Florence, on March 10, 11, 16 and 17, Vanderkief again made reference to the scheduled wage increase. Leadman Watkins White, Jr., testified that, at the supper he attended, Vanderkief stated that he could do nothing about a raise, "because the Union was trying to come into the plant." Leadman Singletary testified that at the supper attended by his line, Vanderkief said that the raise would be given but he could not say when because "he could not discuss it due to the presence of union organizers . . . passing out cards." Leadman O'Neal Rush testified that, at the supper he attended, a question was directed to Vanderkief about the raise and Vanderkief responded "That was one of the questions that I wanted to hear," and explained that the employees could not get the raise "because that would be against the law because they brought the Union in there." Group leader White testified that Vanderkief stated in response to a question about the raise: "That he couldn't get into that right now because of 'this Union mess.' " However, Leadman Smith testified that when asked, Vanderkief stated that there would be no changes and that the employees could get the raise. Graham's testimony was similar to that of Smith. Vanderkief was not called to rebut any of this testimony and, although there are discrepancies among several versions, I credit the testimony that Vanderkief at some of the meetings told employees that they would not get a raise as scheduled because of the attempt by the Union to seek representation of the employees. Rod bender Nathaniel Graham testified that about 10 days after the April 22 Board-conducted election, in the presence of fellow employee John Barnes, his supervisor, Walter Miles, asked him where his raise was. When Graham asked what raise, Miles responded: "The 12 percent raise that [you] would have got. . . if [you] hadn't of worked for the Union." Graham expressed disbelief and Miles insisted that a raise was granted to others. Former employee John Barnes was present and corroborated Graham. Employee Charles L. Newnham, Jr., confronted Miles, who was not his supervisor, with rumors that Miles had told employees that they would have received a 12-percent raise had it not been for the Union. Miles confirmed the rumor and cited a "letter" in the plant office as his source of information. Later, Miles told Newnham that he had not read the letter and knew nothing of a letter. William Cannon, Jr., a cutout trainee under the supervision of Miles, heard the same rumor about 2 weeks after the election and, when he also confronted Miles, he was told: "Right; that's right, you all would have gotten a 12 percent raise like the rest of the plant but, since you all petitioned for a Union, I don't think you will get it now. 'In fact you won't get it.' " Employee Watkins White, Jr., and George Granger testified that on or about May 1, their supervisor, David Tyler, told them that those who had been eligible to vote in the election would not get the 12-percent raise which other employees were to receive. Granger testified further that Tyler also stated that if the Union had not been voted in the employees would have received the 12-percent raise and that together they figured out the dollar amount that he lost. Neither Miles nor Tyler, admitted supervisors, was called to contradict the above testimony, which I credit. Efforts were made, subsequent to the filing of charges herein, to settle that portion of the case relating to the wage increase issue. Respondent offered to settle that portion only. That offer was found unacceptable to the Regional Director. Respondent implemented a wage increase for all production and maintenance employees on August 20, 1976, and made it retroactive to May 2, 1976. At no time did Respondent communicate with or negotiate with the Union concerning the wage increase. On that date, Respondent posted the following notice in the plant addressed to employees: During May and June almost all Nucor employees, except you, received pay increases. Because of the Union activities in this plant, you have been deprived of a benefit already given to other employees. A hearing date of October 4th, has been scheduled on this matter by the NLRB and it appears that it may not be resolved until late this year or even in 1977 - this is not fair to you. The Company is against discrimination of any employee whether he belongs to a union or not. Also, the Company does not believe in providing special privileges or special treatment to any employee whether he belongs to a union or not. EFFECTIVE AUGUST 15th, YOUR WAGE RATES WILL BE INCREASED BY APPROXIMATELY 12% - the same increase provided at other Vulcraft plants earlier. In addition, YOU WILL RECEIVE BACK PAY ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE NEW AND OLD WAGE RATES SINCE MAY 2ND, the date this increase would otherwise have been effective. 298 NUCOR CORPORATION Herbert Bines, a lead rigger, was approached by Supervisor W. E. Jackson, at Jackson's blueprint desk next to the line, about I month before the election and asked if he "wouldn't mind having a man to man talk with me." Bines agreed. Jackson asked Bines what he thought of the Union. Bines, who testified that he daily displayed union stickers on his work helmet and other union insignia in the form of buttons and pencils, on his person, responded "well from the way the things looked now, the Union couldn't hurt nothing; it seemed to me that if it could do anything, it could help; that it definitely couldn't hurt nothing because I don't think we are getting the benefits or anything right now that we should have, that we should be getting. That is what I think about it." Jackson then stated: "Well, who else on the line thinks so?" Bines answered, "I think that just about all of them think the same thing." Jackson who was discharged on March 24, 1976, for alleged misconduct was not called to testify. Garrison testified that Jackson had reported to him that he interrogated Bines. Furthermore, Garrison admitted that he tried to find out who was "working for the thing [Union]," but that effort consisted of the supervisors' approaching employees and explaining the benefits pres- ently offered by the Respondent and that hopefully the employee would express their own ideas and thus "this would give us an idea of what was taking place." Clearly, Jackson, an admitted supervisor, acting within the scope of his authority, engaged in the conduct testified to by Bines. Garrison did not testify as to whether or not he admon- ished Jackson that he exceeded his authority, nor did Garrison explain why Respondent found it necessary to obtain the identity of "who was working for the thing [i.e., Union ]." B. The Discharge of Graham Nathaniel Graham was employed by Respondent for 12- 1/2 years prior to his discharge on May 17, 1976. He held the job of rod bender. His union activity which com- menced on or about March 1, 1976, consisted of attending union meetings and distributing union authorization cards and campaign materials, i.e., stickers, buttons, and pencils, to employees in the cafeteria and in the plant parking lot. Garrison admitted that he frequently toured the plant and was aware that Graham displayed union insignia on his helmet and person throughout the campaign but denied knowledge that Graham engaged in other activities. There is no direct evidence that any supervisor witnessed Graham's activities other than the display of union insignia on his person. Graham testified that, about I month before the April 22 election, Shift Supervisor Cleo Lee engaged him in a conversation in Lee's office concerning the nonpromotion of employee O'Neal Rush to a foreman's position. During the conversation, Lee told Graham that "some fellows told him thy was going to get the Union to straighten out this mess." According to Graham, Lee asked Graham why he did not work to "move up the line." Graham had on several occasions declined Garrison's offer to promote him because he, Graham, did not wish to assume the responsi- bilities of a supervisor which would be the ultimate goal of such promotion. Lee reminded Graham that had he accepted the position of lead rigger 3 years earlier, he would now be a line foreman. Then Lee stated without explanation that Garrison "wasn't after" Graham. Cleo Lee, who testified as to other matters, did not contradict Graham's credible testimony. Garrison testified that Graham was an "excellent" employee who possessed leadership ability, who had influence among his fellow employees, and who "had as great of a potential as any man that works at Vulcraft, in my judgment." Thus, Garrison, on at least three occasions in the past years, offered to promote Graham to lead rigger. Graham's testimony that his supervisor, Miles, had characterized Graham as the "best rodman out there" was uncontradicted. Garrison's only reservation with respect to Graham's performance was that on occasions Graham attempted to change the work rules, i.e., he explained, at times Graham sought the assistance of an extra man on his job. Also Graham did not merely seek an extra man for himself but Graham, accompanied by other rod benders, had con- fronted Garrison in his office with a request for additional assistance on the rod bender machine. According to Garrison: "They wanted an extra man on the rod bender, [they explained] that we were going too fast; they wanted a man when they wanted him, and they thought that they ought to have more money, several things were said . I told them that our plant was being run like the other plants, the sister plants; and that we would have to continue that until such time as we could make changes in all plants." In this regard Garrison conceded that he accused Graham of influencing employees to "disregard" the rules. Employee William Cannon, Jr., a/k/a Speedy Cannon, was outspoken in his criticism of Respondent's rules. Garrison conducted meetings on the line to explain, as he had to Graham and other rod benders who accompanied Graham to his office, that the Company rules would not change. According to Garrison, "Speedy Cannon chal- lenged me to quite a debate," and accused the Company of mistreating employees, of not granting certain benefits, and of withholding bonuses. Cannon testified that in early March Garrison sum- moned him to his office and stated, without explanation, that he had heard reports of Cannon causing trouble on the line and that it came from Cannon's "listening to Graham and that Graham has been causing trouble out there for quite sometime and sooner or later, Graham is going to slip . . .to make a mistake, and when he [does], out the door he is going, and you are goin, too." According to Cannon, Garrison told him that it is "best to stop listening to Graham because Graham 'don't run the line.' " On direct examination, Garrison denied that he ever talked to Cannon about "Graham's standing with the Company," and denied that he ever told Cannon that he was "out to get Graham." However, on cross-examination, he testified as follows: Q. (By Mr. Favors) Was this the meeting at which you told him [Cannon] that he had been listening to Nathaniel Graham too much? A. I don't think, sir, that that meeting took place. I don't recall that particular statement being made. 299 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Q. What do you recall you saying to him about Nathaniel Graham? A. In open meetings, we had talked about it. Now, I may have talked to him out in the plant somewhere and brought up something like this, or he brought up something like this; or do that, or do the other. Q. Uh-huh. A. And that he wasn't paying attention to those guys. Q. Do you recall at any of those meetings that you told him that he had better stop listening to Nathaniel Graham? A. I don't recall, recall. Q. Or did you ever tell him that the source of his problems was listening to Nathaniel Graham? A. It may have come up, but I don't really recall making that statement. Although Garrison's denials were coupled with an explanation that he considered Graham as a good employee with "great potential," thus implying he had no reason to make such statement to Cannon, it is quite clear that the one thing about Graham that Garrison disliked was Graham's desire to change the work rules and his efforts to influence other employees to effect a change in work rules. The confrontation in Garrison's office with Graham's other rod benders necessitated the line meetings where Cannon embroiled Garrison in a heated debate. Garrison therefore did have a motivation to discuss Graham with Cannon. His very uncertain testimony on cross-examination concedes that "it may have come up," and he was unable to deny that he told Cannon that the source of his troubles was Graham's influence. Additional- ly, Cannon impressed me as being the more sincere, assured, and certain in demeanor. I therefore credit Cannon. The event which precipitated Graham's discharge oc- curred on Friday morning, May 14, 1976, at breaktime, in the cafeteria, and involved Gene Caston, a vending machine attendant, employed by the Servomation Compa- ny which owns the vending machines in the Respondent's cafeteria. When Graham was in the cafeteria, James Staley, a rod bender helper, handed Caston's adjustable wrench to Graham, who put it up his sleeve and carried it back to his work area, where he concealed it on a shelf in a cabinet. Caston had used the wrench to adjust some carbon dioxide cylinders. Graham assumed that it belonged to Caston and testified that he took the wrench to tease Caston. It was a common practice for employees to engage in horseplay with Caston, at times hiding products and supplies from him while he serviced the machines. Graham and Caston had frequently teased and kidded each other in the past. Graham testified that he did not leave the wrench exposed out in the plant for fear someone might steal it and we would therefore have to purchase another wrench. Caston testified that he was finished with the wrench and would not have had use for it for about 1-1/2 weeks when the cylinders again needed service. Employee Munn told Caston that Graham had walked out with the wrench. Munn did not see Staley hand the wrench to Graham. Caston saw Garrison at coffee in the cafeteria and asked him if he could get the wrench back from Graham. Garrison called over Cleo Lee and asked him to investi- gate. As Garrison was leaving, Caston testified that he told Garrison that "maybe Graham will return the wrench." Garrison testified that he did not hear Caston make that statement. Foreman Miles, pursuant to Lee's instructions, ap- proached Graham on the line at 11:10 a.m. and asked him if he had Caston's wrench and, upon an affirmative response, told him that "they are looking for it in the cafeteria." Graham, who was occupied with a work task, waited until the next break, and then approached Caston and asked him if he were looking for his wrench. Caston replied, "you little rascal" and requested the wrench. Graham playfully snatched a dollar bill out of Caston's hand as the price for its return and, after he returned the wrench, ate lunch. After eating lunch, he returned the dollar to Caston. After lunch, Garrison, who had interviewed Munn, summoned Graham to his office. Graham explained to Garrison that he had returned the wrench but Garrison stated: "I know ... that wasn't the problem now." Graham explained that he was only playing with Caston and that he played with Caston all the time. Garrison responded with a query as to how he could consider retention of a wrench for 3 hours as "playing." According to Garrison's uncontroverted testimony, Graham there- upon stated that Staley handed him the wrench and told him to hide it, whereupon Garrison promised to "check into it." Garrison interviewed Staley who, he testified, admitted handing the wrench to Graham but denied telling him to hide it. Staley was requested to sign a statement which was to be prepared by Garrison. Garrison thereafter reinterviewed Munn and Caston. Munn did not observe how Graham got the wrench. Caston testified, without contradiction, that Graham had claimed that he and Caston "kidded around a lot," whereupon Caston told Garrison that this was true. Staley testified that he was first interviewed by Garrison about 1:30 p.m. on Friday, the 14th, and asked if he picked up a wrench and handed it to Graham, which he admitted, and whether he knew that Graham had hidden it on the line, to which he denied knowledge. Staley testified that that was the extent of the conversation. However, on Monday, May 17, about 5:30 - 6 p.m., he was called to Garrison's office and interviewed by Garrison in the presence of Shift Supervisor Cleo Lee and Personnel Manager Bert Brown. Staley testified that Garrison advised him that Graham claimed that Staley told Graham to hide the wrench and Staley denied that he knew Graham hid the wrench on the line. According to Staley, at that point, Garrison stated "he had to let [Graham] go because 'Nathaniel had been trying to tear this company down for the last 3 years.'" Thereafter, according to Staley, Garrison recited his futile efforts to try and convince Graham to accept a leadman's job and that Graham had the qualification to be a foreman; further Garrison asked Staley to sign a notarized statement which had been prepared concerning the event because it was "something he had to keep in his file to make this thing about Nathaniel stand up, and he knew that he'd be charged with an unfair labor practice." Staley conceded that Garrison 300 NUCOR CORPORATION also stated that if Graham got away with such conduct any employee could do the same and claim that they were merely playing. Staley further testified that on June 14, 1976, Garrison called him to the office where he told Staley that he was to receive a reprimand for "horseplay" because his lawyer had advised that it was necessary "to make this thing stand up about Nathaniel." Staley testified that Garrison assured him that it would not jeopardize him. Staley was insistent that he was not told on May 17 of any such warning or reprimand. He also testified that Garrison claimed that he was not called in earlier because it "slipped his mind." Garrison, Brown, and Lee all testified that Staley was advised by Garrison on May 17 that he was to receive a reprimand. They were silent as to the balance of the conversation. Garrison denied that he told Staley that he was to receive a reprimand just to make the termination stand up. However, he testified as follows: Q: (By Mr. Harding) ... did you ever tell employee James Staley that Mr. Graham had been attempting "to tear down the company for the last three years"? A: I may have mentioned this after I had terminated Mr. Graham, yes. I may have mentioned it in view of the fact that he had been trying to change the rules of the company, but as far as trying to tear down the company, no. Garrison explained that the reference to changing the rules related to his earlier testimony concerning Graham's concerted effort to obtain an extra employee. Garrison explained that the reason for a month's delay in issuing a written reprimand to Staley was because of a "goof up," illness of one of the clericals, and "well, we had, unfortunately, when you are having to fight union organizing cases, and you are not quite prepared for this, it takes a good bit more time to do these things." However, Garrison conceded that he had success in getting Staley's statement typed up on May 17, as well as other statements. Brown testified that reprimands such as Staley's normally cross his deck, and although it is his responsibility to see that the records are timely maintained, he did not remind Garrison of the necessity to write up a reprimand although he reminds Garrison "10,000 times a day" as to similar matters. From the testimony as a whole, even from Garrison's testimony, it is clear that Garrison did talk to Staley about Graham's efforts to change the rules and that such conduct rankled him. I find Garrison's testimony as to the delay in the reprimand issuance totally unconvincing. Even he could not pinpoint a precise reason in his uncertain testimony. No attempt was made to explain why adequate means were found to type up statements of witnesses but none available for a concise, one paragraph, typed statement of about 150 words. Brown's testimony high- lights the absurdity of the explanation. Given the fact of the delay and the fact that Garrison resented Graham's concerted efforts to change the work rules and did discuss it with Staley, though it was not related to the wrench incident, I find Staley's testimony to be more inherently probable than that of Garrison, Brown, and Lee. More- over, I found Staley to have been more impressive in demeanor with respect to responsiveness and certitude. Therefore, I credit his version of the interviews with Garrison on May 17 and June 14, 1976. On Monday, May 17, Graham approached Caston in the cafeteria and inquired whether Caston was angry with him because of the wrench incident. Caston replied that he was not. Caston, who wore a "go Vulcraft" insignia throughout the campaign, testified that he kidded and joked with Graham throughout the union organizing campaign, and that he told Graham at that point: "Maybe after the Union problem blows over, all of this mess will be ironed out." He testified that he made this statement to Graham because he felt "bad" about "having turned the boy in and possibly causing him his job .... " He explained in his testimony on cross-examination that: "Well, my concern right then was my conscience .... " and further, when pressed to explain why his conscience dictated such a statement, he testified in a visibly shaken manner that he made the foregoing statement to Graham merely to make him feel better. On Monday, May 17, Graham was discharged after having first refused an offer to resign voluntarily. Garrison testified that he discharged Graham because he could not tolerate the taking of property under a pretense of a joke, and that such conduct would set a bad precedent if not punished with a discharge. Garrison testified that he had been aware of a history of horseplay by Graham and others with Caston in the past, but that he was unaware of any incident where property was hidden in the cafeteria as part of a joke. He admitted, however, that "we encourage people kidding" in the plant as a morale booster. In the final analysis, therefore, Garrison took the position that Graham had intended to permanently deprive Caston of an adjustable wrench. Respondent's plant rule regarding "honesty" and its past implementation will be discussed below. C. The Discharge of Bines Herbert Bines was employed by Respondent since June 1957, until he was discharged on June 28, 1976. He last worked as a lead rigger, i.e., leadman under the supervision of Fred Brockington, who replaced Supervisor W. E. Jackson. Commencing on or about March 1, 1976, Bines engaged in union activity which consisted of distributing union authorization cards in the plant, in the plant cafeteria, and outside the plant on the street. Like Graham, he displayed union insignia on his helmet and on his person. There is no direct evidence that his distribution of union authorization cards, (15 - 20 cards) was witnessed by any supervisor. More than half of the 250 employees in the unit also displayed similar insignia on their person. However, as noted above, Bines was interrogated by Supervisor Jack- son, who reported his interrogation back to Garrison. Garrison, though he acknowledged observing union insig- nia on both Graham and Bines, testified that he assumed that both Graham and Bines were not supporting the Union. In explanation, he testified that Jackson reported that Bines "told it like it was," and that he was against the Union. Garrison gave no explanation as to why he thought Graham was against the Union, despite the wearing of 301 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD union insignia by Graham. His testimony with respect to Graham seems all the more incredible in view of Graham's most recent concerted activities directed toward improve- ment in the working conditions of the rod benders. As to Bines, as noted above, Jackson was not called to rebut his testimony, which I credit. At the time of the interrogation, Jackson was admittedly a supervisor, and Garrison conceded that Respondent made an effort to identify those working for the Union, through the efforts of its supervi- sors, and it is unlikely that Jackson would not have reported accurately the results of his interrogation of Bines. Even in the absence of Jackson's interrogation, given the fact that Garrison testified that Respondent engaged in an effort to discover the identity of prounion employees by means of conversations between supervisors and employ- ees, and his testimony that that effort was successful with respect to "several of the inplant organizers," and given the open activity of Bines and Graham, the evidence supports an inference that Garrison had became aware of their union activity. Bines, like Graham, was considered by Garrison to be a valuable employee. Garrison testified that when Fred Brockington succeeded to Jackson's position, he (Garrison) told Brockington of Bines' value to the company and, furthermore, that Bines had the potential for promotion to supervisor. Thus, although Bines had been reprimanded twice in the past for leaving an assignment prematurely, he was clearly held in high regard by Garrison. The event which precipitated Bines' discharge occurred on Saturday, June 26, 1976. It is unclear how many employees worked on that day, although at least 20 were working that day. Bines entered the cafeteria during his morning break and, in an attempt to obtain change from a malfunctioning milk vending machine either slapped, banged, and/or kicked the machine and obtained some change that varied from 75 cents to two hands full, according to the testimony of various witnesses. He was subsequently discharged for abusing the machine and retaining money he obtained from it. The machine had been malfunctioning. Caston testified that on Monday he made an inordinate number of refunds to employees who claimed that the machine had neither dispensed a product, nor the money. When Bines ap- proached the machine, a napkin was stuffed in its slot, as a warning. Bines disregarded it. He testified that he inserted a quarter, received no milk, futilely pushed the coin return button, and then slapped the machine vigorously with the palm of his hand, and received three quarters. He reinserted two quarters again futilely, and again hit the machine in the same manner. Receiving no further change, he testified that he kept his original quarter and proceeded to another machine. Several employees sat in the vicinity of the machine, one of whom was Robert Flynn, an employee of only several weeks' tenure, who also happened to be a friend and neighbor of machine attendant Gene Caston. Thus, fate appears to have destined Mr. Caston to play another role in events which led to the discharge of an employee. Flynn testified that he observed Bines bang the machine with his fist and kick it with his heavy steel reinforced work boot until after sometime coins fell out which Graham held with the cupped palms of his hands. Flynn testified that Bines put the money in his pocket and reinserted another quarter and recommenced banging until he gave up and left laughing. Flynn told Caston later at his home what he allegedly had seen, because Caston had told him to keep an eye out because "so much" had been missing from the machines. Caston did not mention any such instruction in his testimony, but in any event decided to report the incident to Respondent. On Monday, he reported it to Garrison. When asked what he told Garrison, Caston replied: "The same thing, I guess, that Bobby [Flynn] had said to me, that the boy had pulled the plug, or had kicked the machine, and then pulled the plug, and put a quarter in it, and then lost the quarter too." Caston found no money hung up in the machine's coin rejector on Monday, but was at a complete loss to estimate how much money was missing because of a mixup in his inventory system. He did notice a bow or buckle on the front door of the machine, but was unsure as to who or what caused it. He so informed Garrison. However, Garrison promised Caston that he would investigate and try to get Caston's money back. Garrison talked to Flynn. During Flynn's interview with Garrison, Flynn insisted that Bines obtained two handsful of money from the machine. Flynn told him that employee Wallace McCall was present. Garrison testified that he interviewed McCall who told him that he saw a man with a "handful" of money but he testified that he did not recall if McCall had said that Bines kicked the machine. Garrison interviewed employees Clark, Eaddy, and Newnham on Monday and took several statements. Essentially, Garrison testified that these employees stated that they were not in a position to directly observe Bines but that they either heard the banging or coins fall in a slot. Clark testified that he did see Bines engage in various gyrations which gave the appearance that he was "tearing up" the machine, but in reality consisted of dancing and stomping his feet while slapping the machine. He did see Bines reach in the slot with two fingers and pull out something. Clark, whose employment was since voluntarily terminated, testified that he told Garrison that he did not see Bines kick the machine because he was not sure whether he did or did not, but that he told Garrison that Bines did not get any money out of it except what he had put in. He was not asked by Garrison to sign a statement. Newnham, who was also employed elsewhere at the time of hearing, testified that he saw Bines use his hands and bump the machine but saw no kicking. He heard a few coins drop in the slot. When interviewed by Garrison, he testified that he told Garrison that his estimate was that Bines only obtained about 75 cents. He signed a statement for Garrison. Richard Eaddy, who is still employed by Respondent, testified to about the same account of events as Newnham. He also testified that in the interview with Garrison, at which Lee was also present, he was asked if he saw a double handful of money but he told Garrison that he only saw something like three to four quarters which Bines retrieved with two fingers. He also signed a statement for Garrison. Wallace McCall, a witness called by Respondent, testified that he was present but did not observe the beating. He did see Bines standing by the machine with change in one hand while inserting coins with another, and specifically that Bines had one hand 302 NUCOR CORPORATION cupped upward. In his statement to Garrison, McCall stated that Bines had a "handful" of money. McCall conceded that he did not see Bines pocket any money, that the machine had exhibited problems for 1-1/2 years, and that it was not unusual for employees to beat on the machine. Roosevelt Harkless, an employee of 8 years' tenure, also testified that it is a common practice for employees to slap the machine to get their money returned. Indeed, Caston also testified that he advised employees to thump a recalcitrant machine. Garrison testified that he accepted Flynn's version of the incident because it was likely that the other employees would be reluctant to report on a friend. There is no evidence in the record, however, of any personal bias toward Bines by those employees. Indeed Clark and Eaddy were not employed by Respondent at the time of the hearing and appeared to have no personal interest in the matter. Flynn, on the other hand, conceded that he suggested payment of $100 to Garrison during the Board investigation of this case, in exchange for a copy of his statement. He insisted that he was merely joking and denied that he was promised any reward other than witness fees for testifying. Flynn's account of the event given to Garrison would suggest that it was physically impossible for a person to obtain two handsful of coins. Clearly, the slot was too small to contain such an amount, i.e., a capacity of six coins at most. A flap over the slot keeps coins from falling out. It is therefore obvious that one hand is needed to hold open the slot. Moreover, in his testimony Flynn did not assert that Bines had two handsful of coins. However, Garrison accepted Flynn's account. Garrison testified that after he interviewed Eaddy, Clark, Newnham, and McCall he talked to Bines "to see if he would return the money - because he was a valuable employee." Bines told Garrison that he only retrieved 75 cents and that is what he told Eaddy. It is Garrison's unrebutted testimony that at that point Eaddy was called in and, in the presence of Bines, stated that Bines refused to tell him how much money he retrieved. Bines then insisted that he only hit the machine like everyone else does. Garrison reinterviewed Caston and was advised that there was no way to determine what amount of money was lost, but he did say that he noticed a new bow or buckle on the machine door. Garrison reinterviewed Bines and told Bines that several witnesses saw or heard him abuse the machine and heard or saw him with a handful of money. Bines stated in response alternately that he was only 25 cents to the good or "even." Garrison then decided to discharge Bines for taking money from the machine which did not belong to him and for not returning it, as well as for abusing the machine and thus setting a bad example as a leadman which would "tear down the discipline in the plant." Garrison cited the employer's handbook, page 21, the paragraph entitled "Honesty" as the rule which both Graham and Bines violated. Both employees had previous- ly received copies of the handbook. The handbook section entitled "Honesty" provides: Each person is expected to respect the property of the Company and of his fellow workers. Taking (stealing) of even the smallest item from the Company or any employee is strictly prohibited as well as any other act of dishonesty. Although not specifically cited by Respondent, page 21, paragraph "Personal Conduct," also provides, in part: Foul language, fighting, horseplay, gambling, and other objectionable or unfavorable conduct will not be allowed and is cause for dismissal. The handbook set forth no scale of discipline, in ratio to the degree of nor as to the frequency of the misconduct. Garrison, who has held the position of operations manager since October 1968 and who is responsible for 400 employees of whom 280 are employed in the manufactur- ing phase, testified that he has not fired any other "long term employees like Mr. Graham and Mr. Burns." However, Garrison on direct examination did cite two prior terminations for "taking from the company," in violation of the "honesty" rule. Foreman W. E. Jackson was requested to resign under threat of discharge on March 24, 1976, because he had allegedly understated the number of employees on his production line in order to inflate his reported productivity for a 4-month period which, in turn, increased the amount of bonus awarded under a company incentive plan. Because of his long tenure, Jackson was permitted to resign. Joseph Odom, who was hired on February 2, 1974, was discharged on June 21, 1974. Odom, a machinist, allegedly was discovered by his foreman to have been performing personal contract work on company time. He was warned by his foreman to stop, but became abusive and refused to stop. Accordingly, he was discharged ultimately, as Garrison conceded on cross-examination, for insubordination; i.e., had he complied with the order, he would have not been discharged. Jackson was rehired by the Nucor Corporation at its Darlington, South Carolina, plant, 14 miles away. However, Garrison testified that he was unaware of the rehiring until sometime after it occurred. Although Garrison considered the rehiring a "low blow," he did not testify that he took any steps to counter that action other than to testify that the Darlington plant has an autonomous hiring policy. Garrison testified that, although the plant has experi- enced past incidents of missing personal property, never before has any employee been identified other than those employees cited above. With respect to terminations in general, Garrison testified that from February 1976 a dozen employees were terminated, but that was due to a high voluntary turnover that the plant experiences. Garri- son testified that, although the handbook contains no disciplinary reprimand procedure, the general practice calls for a warning if an employee is "constantly guilty of one particular thing, and if it is a bad enough situation that it happened again, he is endangering his job." He went on to explain: No there are certain rules, for instance, coming in drunk, that is a man is definitely terminated. Stealing, he is definitely terminated. Most of these minor things, missing time, for instance, would be one; now we try our best to go as far as we can with employees and get 303 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD them to be good employees because it is expensive to train these people. We train them from the bottom all the way to the top. So, we try to save them, and sometimes we do put up with too much; but in actual work; if a man within 90 days is not contributing to production, he is terminated. Now along the way, some men have a tendency to slack off. We encourage them to improve themselves, give them every opportunity to improve themselves. If finally we come to the conclusion that they have no intention of improving themselves we have no choice but to let them go. Garrison further testified that he has utilized both oral and written reprimands, as well as suspension which he considers a poor method for a major offense because "a man is going to be forever working against you once this has occurred." Analysis The 8(aXl) allegations Garrison's stated reason for not implementing the wage increase because of an assumption that such an increase was subject to bilateral negotiation with a union is indefensible. It is clear that, if in the normal course of events employees would have received a wage increase, the mere pendency of a question concerning representation would not impede implementation of such a raise. Rather an employer who withholds such increase and tells employees that the reason for the withholding is a pending petition violates the Act. Florida Steel Corporation, 221 NLRB 371 (1975); GAF Corporation, 196 NLRB 538 (1972); Montgomery Ward & Co. Incorporated, 187 NLRB 956 (1971). The fact that a union has been certified does not justify an employer's withholding of a wage increase that otherwise would have been implemented in the absence of such certification. The Board has found that an employer violated the Act where that employer withheld a promised wage increase because in the interval between the promise and the effective date of the wage increase the employees selected a union to represent them, and the employer anticipated that wages would be part of any package it would be asked to agree to in a collective- bargaining agreement. United Aircraft Corporation, Hamil- ton Standard Division, (Boron Filament Plant), 199 NLRB 658 (1972). (See also Tube-Lok Products, 209 NLRB 666 (1974).) Similar conduct is found violative even in situa- tions where there are appeals pending contesting the certifications. Russell-Newman Manufacturing Company, Inc., 167 NLRB 1112 (1968), enfd. 406 F.2d 1280 (C.A. 5, 1969); Howard Johnson Company, 172 NLRB 763 (1968). Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated Section 8(aX1) of the Act by withholding the scheduled 12-percent wage increase from the production and maintenance employees on or about May 1, 1976. Respondent argues further that because it posted the August 20 notice to employees and because it effectuated the wage increase as of May 1, 1976, the matter has been mooted. Further it argued that in any event the Respon- dent's August 20 conduct dispelled any coercion that might previously have transpired, citing Whyte Manufacturing Company, Inc., 109 NLRB 1125 (1954). However, I find the Whyte case distinguishable from the facts herein. The Board therein found that the employees' designation of a new bargaining representative was protected concerted activity, and that the conduct of employer therein in requiring them to sign new authorization cards redesignat- ing the union as their bargaining representative was a violation of the Act. However, the Board found that, by the "subsequent return of the authorization cards and state- ments and distribution of a 'neutrality' notice to the employees only 4 days later, the Respondent Employer acted promptly and reasonably to dispel any coercion suggested by the circumstances surrounding its prior unlawful conduct and thereby dispelled any such coer- cion." In the instant case, Respondent by no stretch of the imagination acted promptly. Moreover, the notice posted on August 20 clearly states that the employees were deprived of a benefit given to other employees, "because of the Union activities in this plant" and then points out that the issue of its legality will be resolved pending further litigation. Thus, although the balance of the notice promises no discrimination by the employer because of union activities and does effectuate a retroactive raise, it does, as a whole, suggest that the employer still does not concede that as a matter of law it cannot withhold benefits from employees within the context of facts in this case; i.e., the pending of a question concerning representation. Such a notice I find inadequate as a remedy for its conduct herein which I find did not merely consist of a technical misjudgment of the law, but which consisted of statements by supervisors to employees that were calculated to convey the message that they were being punished because of their engagement in union activities, and in one case because they voted for the Union. Accordingly, I do not find that Respondent's August 20 conduct to have mooted the issue or to have dispelled the coercion of its employees. However, I do not view the August 20 conduct as violative of Section 8(aXl) of the Act in itself. Again the statement which does recite the past conduct of the employer, when read as a whole, suggests that the legality of that conduct will be litigated. I do not read the notice to constitute a threat of repeated coercive conduct. Accord- ingly, I do not find it violative of the Act. With respect to the interrogation of Herbert Bines by Supervisor Jackson, Respondent argues that the totality of the circumstances render such interrogation as noncoer- cive; i.e., an isolated, generalized, inquiry during worktime near the production line which occurred in an amiable and relaxed atmosphere, which elicited a truthful response. The Board has stated in Florida Steel Corporation, 224 NLRB 45 (1976): It has long been recognized that the test of interference, restraint, and coercion under Section 8(aX)() of the Act does not turn on a respondent's motive, courtesy, or gentleness, or on whether it succeeded or failed. It also does not turn on whether the supervisor and employee are on friendly or unfriendly terms. Rather, the test is whether the supervisor's conduct reasonably tended to interfere with the free exercise of the employee's rights under the Act. 304 NUCOR CORPORATION In this instant case, there is no evidence to suggest that Jackson and Bines were close friends or that it was a casual conversation other than Jackson's request to have a "man to man talk." It occurred at the situs of Jackson's authority; i.e., at his desk. It went beyond a mere inquiry of Bines' union insignia to an elicitation from Bines as to the identity of other union supporters. I fail to grasp how Bines' truthfulness detracts from the coercive nature of the interrogation. It merely demonstrates the effectiveness of it. Moreover, as stated above, the test is the tendency of the conduct to coerce. Furthermore, Respondent admittedly engaged in a campaign of widespread conversations with employees calculated to discover the identity of employees who worked for the Union. Against such a background, I conclude that the conversation was clearly coercive and that its impact did not tend to be so isolated as Respondent suggests. The attempt to ferret out the identity of union activists by coercively interrogating a union activist is not a mere isolated occurrence. Accordingly, I find such conduct violative of the Act and warrants a remedial order. The 8(a)(3) issues It is axiomatic that an employee may be discharged for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all, but not for any conduct that is protected by the Act. N. LR.B. v. McGahey, et al. d/b/a Columbus Marble Works, 223 F.2d 406 (C.A. 5, 1956). It is true, as Respondent argues, that the Board cannot substitute its judgment for the business judgment of an employer, and thus the wisdom of a discharge is not dispositive of the issue. However, as stated in Shattuck Denn Mining Corporation (Iron King Branch) v. N.LRB., 362 F.2d 466, 470 (C.A. 9, 1966): If he [the trier of fact] finds that the stated motive for a discharge is false, he certainly can infer that there is another motive. More than that, he can infer that the motive is one the employer desires to conceal - an unlawful motive - at least where, as in this case, the surrounding facts tend to reinforce that inference. Also it has been found that: Illegal motive has been held supported by a combina- tion of factors such as "coincidence in union activity and discharge" . . . "general bias or hostility toward the union" . . . variance from the employer's "normal employment routine" . . and an implausible explana- tion by the employer for its action .... " McGraw - Edison Company v. N.LR.B., 419 F.2d 67 (C.A. 8, 1969). See also W. T. Grant Co., 210 NLRB 622 (1974). Both Graham and Bines were valuable employees who enjoyed a lengthy tenure covering many years. Graham's performance, according to Garrison, had one flaw; i.e., he attempted to change the rules. Specifically, he engaged in a concerted effort to improve working conditions. Cannon's testimony reveals the extent of Garrison's resentment to such activity by Graham. On the heals of Graham's concerted activities to improve working conditions came his known activity of displaying prounion insignia. Garri- son admitted that he sought to identify those employees who worked for the Union. Thus Bines' prounion sympa- thies were elicited by Supervisor Jackson. Therefore, if Garrison had not become aware of Graham's additional union activities, through plant interviews and his own observation, it would have been logical for him to assume that Graham strongly espoused the union cause. Respondent did exhibit an animosity to the union activity in the form of the withholding of a wage increase that was otherwise due to the production and maintenance employees. This was no mere technical transgression. The supervisors in various conversations after the election reinforced the calculated effect of such conduct. Supervisor Jackson's interrogation of Bines is further evidence of Respondent animosity. Thus Respondent was possessed of a union animus at the time it decided to discharge two known union adherents. It is therefore necessary to evaluate the proffered reasons for their discharge. By Garrison's own admission, employ- ees of lengthy service in whom Respondent has invested much expense in training are not lightly dismissed. Graham admittedly took a wrench from nonemployee Caston. This clearly was an act of common horseplay. Caston told Garrison that the two frequently kidded each other. Caston was in no immediate need for this tool. Given Graham's long tenure as a responsible employee and his value as a potential foreman, it is most unreasonable for Garrison to have assumed that Graham's explanation was not truthful. With respect to Bines, Garrison relied on the statement of an employee of several weeks' tenure to discredit a valuable leadman who had an exemplary work record since 1957. There is no evidence that Bines or Graham had been untruthful in the past. No one had any idea of how much money was missing from the machine. Flynn's account is unbelievable on its face. Caston made no demand for the return of any specific amount of money. He was not even sure that Bines was responsible for the slight bow in the front of the machine. It was common practice to slap the recalcitrant machine. The nature of the bases for these discharges is finally highlighted by resort to an examination of past practices. Garrison cited the "honesty" rule, the breach of which he testified constituted such a major offense as to warrant discharge on the first infraction. The only other nonsuper- visory employee who breached this rule, Odom, was not actually discharged for "taking from the company"; i.e., stealing time for personal business. Indeed, he was warned to cease and desist, and upon an outright refusal to desist he was fired. Odom was an employee of extremely short tenure, yet he was given the opportunity to continue his employ with only a warning until he became insubordinate. The only other discharge involved a foreman who had engaged in misconduct for over a 4-month period, i.e., a conspiracy to defraud Respondent with respect to incentive bonuses, but who was rehired elsewhere by the Nucor Corporation. At worst, Bines' and Graham's conduct was spontaneous and petty and not nearly of the gravity of that of Odom. Moreover, the property of neither the employer nor employees was involved. The aggrieved third party, Caston, had made no request for any discipline. Accord- ingly, I conclude that the severity of punishment meted out 305 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to Graham and Bines ran contrary to Respondent's past policy for minor misconduct as explained by Garrison, and as effectuated in Odom's case, supposedly involving a major offense. Finally, Garrison's conduct with respect to Staley's reprimand and his conversations with Staley reveal an effort to contrive a basis upon which to discharge Graham. I therefore conclude that Respondent's reasons for the discharge are implausible, unbelievable, and pretextuous in nature. I find, in light of Respondent's animosity to the union organizing effort and the coincidence of known union organizing efforts by Graham and Bines, that the time motivation for their discharge was their union organizing activities. Furthermore, I find that, with respect to Graham, Respondent was also motivated in part by Graham's concerted activities, engaged in for the mutual benefit and betterment of working conditions of fellow employees in the rod bending department. Such concerted activity has been afforded protection by the Act to the same extent as institutional union activity. Carbet Corpora- tion, 191 NLRB 892 (1971). Accordingly, it is my conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by discharging Nathaniel Graham on May 17, 1976, and by discharging Herbert Bines on June 28, 1976. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, thus violating Section 8(aX)(1) of the Act by withholding from its production and maintenance employees until August 20, 1976, a 12-percent wage increase they would have received on or about May 2, 1976, because of the pendency of a representation petition, and by Supervisors Miles and Tyler telling its employees after a Board-conducted election that they did not receive the aforesaid raise and would not receive it because they supported the Union, petitioned for a Board-conducted election, or voted for the Union; I and by Supervisor W. E. Jackson's coercive interrogation of an employee as to his and other employees' union sympathies on or about March 22, 1976. 2. Respondent has violated Section 8(aX)( and (3) of the Act by discharging Nathaniel Graham on May 17, 1976, because of his union activities and sympathies and his concerted protected activity, and by discharging Herbert Bines on June 28, 1976, because of his union activity and sympathies. 3. The unfair labor practices enumerated above are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY It having been found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) I Vanderkieft's preelection conduct was not alleged as an independent violation of the Act and I make no finding thereon. 2 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 the recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become of the Act, it will be recommended that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It having been found that Respondent discriminatorily discharged Nathaniel Graham and Herbert Bines, Respon- dent shall offer them immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and shall make them whole for any loss they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them. Any backpay found to be due shall be computed in accordance with the formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). "A violation of Section 8(aX3) goes to the very heart of the Act." It therefore warrants that Respondent be further required to cease and desist from infringing in any other manner upon the rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 of the Act. Pan American Exterminating Co., 206 NLRB 298, fn. 1 (1973); Entwistle Manufacturing Company, 23 NLRB 1058, enfd. as modified 120 F.2d 532 (C.A. 4, 1941). Upon the basis of the entire record, the findings of fact, and the conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER 2 The Respondent, Nucor Corporation, Vulcraft Division, Florence, South Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: I. Cease and desist from: (a) Telling employees that it has withheld a scheduled wage increase from them because they have petitioned the National Labor Relations Board for a representation election, or because they voted for or supported the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, or any other Union, 3 or in fact withholding such wage increase for these reasons. (b) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their and other employees' union sympathies. (c) Discouraging membership in or activities on behalf of United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, or any other Union, or discouraging the concerted activities of employees engaged in for their mutual aid and protection and betterment of working conditions by discharging or otherwise discriminating against employees in any manner with regard to their rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, hire, tenure of employment, or any term or condition of their employment. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self- organization, to form, join, or assist the above-named labor organization, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 3 In view of the fact that Respondent has on August 20, 1976, implemented the wage increase retroactively to May 2, 1976, the Order will only be directed prospectively. 306 NUCOR CORPORATION collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Nathaniel Graham and Herbert Bines immedi- ate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other documents necessary and relevant to analyze and compute the amount of backpay due under this Order. (c) Post at its Florence, South Carolina, facility copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 4 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 11, after being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Company to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by other material. (d) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed in all other respects. 4 In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." APPENDIX NOTIcE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing at which all parties had an opportunity to present evidence and state their positions, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we have violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post this notice. The Act gives employees the following rights: To engage in self-organization To form, join, or assist unions To bargain collectively through representa- tives of their own choosing To engage in activities together for purposes of collective-bargaining or other mutual aid or protection To refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that the employees' bargain- ing representative and an employer have a collective-bargaining agreement which imposes a lawful requirement that employees become union members. WE WILL NOT tell our employees that we have withheld a scheduled wage increase from them because they have petitioned the National Labor Relations Board for a representation election, or because they voted for or supported the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, or any other Union, nor will we in fact withhold such wage increase for these reasons. WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning their own sympathy toward any labor organization or concerning the union sympathies of other employees. WE WILL NOT layoff, discharge, or otherwise discrim- inate against employees for engaging in activities on behalf of United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO- CLC, or any other labor organization, or other concerted activities for their mutual aid, protection, or improvement of working conditions. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL offer Nathaniel Graham and Herbert Bines immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and we will make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of the unlawful discrimination against them. NUCOR CORPORATION, VULCRAFT DIVISION 307