Northern Wire Corp.

NORTHERN WIRE CORP 727 Northern Wire Corporation and Chicago and Central States Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL-CIO Cases 30- CA-9441 and 30-CA-9357 November 16 1988 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT On March 2 1988 Administrative Law Judge Robert A Giannasi issued the attached decision The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief the General Counsel filed cross exceptions a supporting brief and a reply beef the Charging Party filed an answering brief and the Respondent filed an answering brief to the General Counsel s cross exceptions 1 The National Labor Relations Board has delegat ed its authority in this proceeding to a three member panel The Board has considered the decision and the record2 in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge s rulings findings 3 ' The Respondent requested that the Board strike the General Coun sel s brief in support of cross exceptions asserting a failure to comply with the Board s Rules and Regulations We deny the Respondents re quest 2 The Respondent has requested oral argument The request is denied as the record exceptions and briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties 3 The Respondent and the General Counsel have excepted to some of the judge s credibility findings The Board s established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products 91 NLRB 544 (1950) enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings The judge found that on June 23 1986 Manager Dave Arseneau vio lated Sec 8(a)(1) of the Act by telling employee Gerald Coffey that tar diness would not be tolerated because of the Union s presence The Re spondent argues that the unlawful threat was neither alleged in the com plaint nor litigated at the hearing and thus the Respondent argues that the judge should not have found a violation on this allegation It is well established that the Board may find a violation not alleged in the com plaint if the matter was related to other allegations in the complaint fully and fairly litigated and not prejudicial to the respondent Boylan Sun 255 NLRB 154 fn 1 (1981) Here the complaint alleges other instances in which the Respondent violated Sec 8(a)(1) by threatening tighter disci pline because of the Union s presence Futhermore the record shows that the matter was fully litigated as the Respondent specifically cross exam fined Coffey about the Arseneau threat as part of its defense to an unlaw ful warning given to Coffey and alleged in the complaint as an 8(a)(3) and (1) violation Accordingly we conclude that the judge s 8(a)(1) find ing was fully warranted In sec D part 1 of his decision the judge found that employee Dale Fass was absent from work on June 18 1986 Fass attendance record and timecard indicate however that Fass was working on that day We cor rect the inadvertent error The judge also found that during the August 21 1986 bargaining ses lion Respondent Attorney Conway unlawfully threatened employees at the bargaining table that his client intended to tighten up on discipline because the employees had chosen the Union as their bargaining agert The judge further determined that Conway s threat contributed to the unfair labor practice strike Because we agree with the judge that the Re spondent made other unlawful statements of a similar nature to the em ployees we find it unnecessary to pass on the above allegation as it is and conclusions 4 to modify the remedy 5 and to adopt the recommended Order as modified 6 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that the Re spondent Northern Wire Corporation Merrill Wisconsin its officers agents successors and as signs shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified Substitute the following for paragraph 2(g) (g) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply cumulative and does not affect the Order or our finding that the strike was an unfair labor practice strike from its inception 4 Although we agree with the judge that the strike was an unfair labor practice strike from its inception we do not rely on his discussion of the Respondents asserted Wright Line defense that the employees would have struck even in the absence of unfair labor practices This defense is inapplicable here because the issue in this context is whether the employ ees in deciding to go on strike were motivated in part by the unfair labor practice of the Respondent not whether without that motivation employees might have struck for some other reason 5 In the remedy section of his decision the judge recommended that the backpay for the unfair labor practice strikers should commence run ning 5 days after their first application for reinstatement to the date of the Respondents offer of reinstatement The Board has found that the 5 day period is a reasonable accommodation between the interests of the employees in returning to work as quickly as possible and the employers need to effectuate that return in an orderly manner The 5 day period serves no useful purpose however when a respondent has rejected unduly delayed or ignored an unconditional offer to return to work That is the situation here Accordingly backpay will commence as of the date of the unconditional offer to return to work on December 4 1986 See Teamsters Local 574 259 NLRB 344 fn 2 (1981) B In part 2(g) of the recommended Order the judge ordered the Re spondent to notify the Regional Director within 28 days of the judge s decision what steps the Respondent has taken to comply The correct no tification period is 20 days from the date of the decision Joyce Ann Sesser Esq for the General Counsel Jack D Walker Esq of Madison Wisconsin for the Re spondent Ronald M Willis Esq of Chicago Illinois for the Charging Party DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ROBERT A GIANNASI Administrative Law Judge This case was tried in Merrill Wisconsin over 5 days in May and July 1987 The complaint as amended once during the hearing alleges that Respondent violated Sec tion 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening employees with re pnsals and making other coercive statements and Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discnminatonly issuing warnings to suspending and discharging employees in order to dis courage union activity The employees represented by the Charging Party Union struck from 8 October through 3 December 1986 and the General Counsel al leges that the strike was caused in part by the unfair labor practices mentioned above The complaint also al 291 NLRB No 107 728 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD leges that Respondent violated the Act by failing to rein state the striking employees in accordance with the rights of unfair labor practice strikers Respondent filed an answer which denies the essential allegations of the complaint The parties filed briefs and reply briefs that I have read and considered i Based on the entire record including the testimony of the witnesses and my observation of their demeanor I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDICTIONAL MATTERS Respondent a Wisconsin corporation with an office and place of business in Merrill Wisconsin manufactures custom wire forms During a representative 1 year period Respondent purchased and received goods and materials valued in excess of $50 000 directly from sup pliers located outside Wisconsin and sold and shipped products valued over $50 000 to customers outside Wis consin Accordingly I find that Respondent is an em ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec tion 2(2) (6) and (7) of the Act The Charging Party Union (the Union) is a labor orga nization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act II THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A Background The Union filed an election petition on 17 April 1986 A campaign ensued in which the Respondent opposed union representation The Union won the election which was held on 29 May 1986 The Union was certified on 6 June 1986 The parties first met on 22 July 1986 and thereafter commenced bargaining The parties met on 1 15 and 21 August 11 and 12 September and with a Federal Mediator on 18 September and 1 and 3 October The employees met on 6 October and voted to engage in a strike The strike began on 8 October The parties con tinued to bargain during the strike The Union accepted Respondents last offer on 3 December 1986 and the strike ended the next day On 4 December a union official presented a written statement to an official of Respondent on behalf of the striking employees In that statement the employees made an unconditional offer to return to work The Re spondent which had hired replacements did not immedi ately reinstate the strikers but presumably recalled them as vacancies arose B Some Alleged Preelection Misconduct On one occasion during the preelection period Super visor Tom Pineapple Mattos came into the Bowery Bar where a group of prounion employees had been meeting Union Representative Lynn Talbott introduced herself to Mattos and then she and another union official Janeen La Monica left the bar Mattos thereafter spoke i During a hiatus in the trial the parties reached an amicable agree ment on the resolution of par 11(h) of the complaint an allegation that Respondent discnmmatonly refused to invite unreinstated strikers to its 1986 Christmas party That issue is no longer part of this case to employee Charlene Schotz a member of the employee organizing committee He asked her how things were going with the Union and what the vote would be She answered that things were real good and that the vote would be 60/40 Mattos then stated that if the employees did not succeed in getting the Union in there all the troublemakers would be fired Schotz asked how Mattos knew and he replied that the office told him Schotz then asked what would happen if the Union did succeed Mattos replied that Hatch a nick name for owner Robert Berard would lock the place up The above is based on the testimony of Schotz who was a candid and truthful witness She related the above conversation clearly and in detail and her testimony sur vived vigorous cross examination Mattos testimony on this point was vague and evasive He was unable to recall any conversations with Schotz in the Bowery Bar although he admitted meeting Talbott there on one occasion Two other witness to the conversation did not testify They are no longer employed by Respondent and have moved from the area I credit Schotz version of this encounter Mattos remarks clearly threatened reprisals-dis charge and plant closure-for union activities These threats were violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act The General Counsel also alleges that Mattos threat ened employee Steve Hyronemus with unspecified re prisals for signing a union membership card The evi dence relied on based on the testimony of Hyronemus is as follows Hyronemus was in the breakroom at lunch time on his second day at work when a fellow employee handed him a union card Hyronemus signed the card Shortly thereafter Mattos approached him and asked if he had signed a union card Hyronemus said he had Ac cording to Hyronemus Mattos then shook his head like no keep that outside the building Hyronemus later asked Mattos what be meant by that According to Hyronemus Mattos replied just because management don t like it Mattos denied making these statements Hyronemus testimony on this point was not clear and his testimony generally did not impress me as being par ticularly reliable No one else was present during either comment However even accepting his testimony I do not believe that Mattos remarks amounted to unspecified threats of reprisal The remarks are ambiguous At most they were an indication that management did not ap prove of the Union There were no threats at all In all the circumstances I do not find Mattos remarks coer cive particularly considering the lack of clarity in Hyr onemus testimony Accordingly I shall dismiss this alle gation of the complaint The General Counsel further alleges that Mattos threatened unspecified trouble for an employee who at tended a union meeting According to employee Sharon Reichelt shortly before the election she came to the plant to pick up her car after attending a union meeting The car would not start and she went into the building to speak to Mattos about getting someone to help start it Mattos asked her how the union meeting went Reichelt said fine Mattos said that was good as long as it did NORTHERN WIRE CORP not get her into any kind of trouble No one else was present Mattos confirmed the incident but denied the conver sation He testified that he said he brought it up about the union that I was in a union in Hawaii and right now I can t talk about it and I can t go against the union Reichelt reaffirmed her testimony on cross examina tion She impressed me as a straightforward witness Mattos did not His testimony about what was said in his conversation with Reichelt does not ring true He con ceded he brought up the Union but he did not testify how or why he broached the subject It is plausible that he did so in the manner suggested by Reichelt and I accept her testimony Nevertheless I do not find that Mattos remarks amount to a threat of reprisal He did not say that Re spondent would cause the trouble that would befall Reichelt No other threat of reprisal was mentioned It is as likely that the trouble Mattos was talking about would come from union officials prounion employees or other sources as from Respondent I find the remark much too vague to support the finding of a threat from Mattos or Respondent Nor was the context such that I would find the innocuous question which preceded the trouble remark to have been coercive I shall therefore dismiss this allegation of the complaint Employee Jerry Coffey testified that he had two sepa rate conversations with Respondents officials about what Respondent would do if the Union won the elec tion Tooling and Engineering Manager Dave Arseneau and Plant Manager Dan Frei told Coffey that Hatch would close the plant if the Union won the election Ar seneau made the statement in a conversation with Coffey in Arseneau s office 2 weeks before the election Frei made the statement in a conversation between him and Coffey in the toolroom Arseneau and Frei denied having these conversations I credit Coffey whom I found to be a reliable witness As I have indicated elsewhere in this decision I found Arseneau s testimony unreliable in other respects More over the statement attributed to Arseneau was similar to one attributed to Mattos by another employee I find it likely that these supervisory officials were repeating a view they believed was held by the owner namely that he would shut down the plant if the Union were selected by the employees 2 The statement by Arseneau concerning a plant closure was not based on objective considerations but rather di rectly attributed to the employees support of the Union Thus it amounted to an unlawful threat of reprisal See NLRB v G i s s e l Packing C o 395 U S 575 618-619 (1969) C Some Alleged Postelection Misconduct Employee Dale Zerbe spoke to Supervisor Mattos the night before the previously announced union meeting of 16 September He and employee Dave Scolley ap 2 Although I found Coffey to be a credible witness I have no particu lar reason to discredit Frei on this point As a finding on the threat by Frei would be cumulative I do not deem it necessary to make a specific finding on the Frei allegation 729 proached Mattos at his desk Zerbe asked Mattos if he could get into any trouble if he attended the union meet ing since he was a probationary employee Mattos re plied that if the office got wind of it Zerbe could be terminated This finding is based on Zerbe s testimony He was an honest witness who testified fully and reliably about this incident Indeed he reported it at a union meeting where the statement was discussed Although Zerbe stated in a pretrial affidavit that another employee Scolley had overheard the conversation he indicated at the hearing that he was not sure that Scolley had In fact Scolley tes - tified that he and Zerbe had both approached Mattos but that Scolley was too far away to overhear the conversa tion This discrepancy is not sufficient to impugn Zerbe s testimony Mattos confirmed that Zerbe asked him the question but he testified that he told Zerbe that he could not answer it I credit Zerbe Mattos did not impress me as a credible witness on other matters and this exchange is similar to one he had with another employee Mattos statement to Zerbe-reported and disseminat ed at a union meeting-was a clear threat of reprisal that was unlawful under Section 8(a)(1) of the Act The General Counsel alleges that Design and Engi neering Manager Jim Eberhardy engaged in unlawful in terrogation and threats based on the testimony of em ployee Dennis Yorde Yorde testified that in early June Eberhardy asked Yorde if he would check around his shift to see how many people were for the Union Eber hardy also said he hoped that people did not get as heav ily involved in the Union as Dale Fass Yorde said he never checked on his fellow employees and that Eber hardy never followed up on the matter Eberhardy denied having this conversation with Yorde I do not credit Yorde s testimony Most of Fass well publicized difficulties with management came after this alleged conversation in early June between Eberhardy and Yorde Nor does it make sense that Eberhardy would have asked Yorde to check on union sentiment after the election Yorde s testimony was not placed in sufficient context for me to accord it the necessary re liablity on which to base factual findings Moreover even if something of the sort was said to Yorde I do not believe the remarks amounted to coercive interrogation There was no followup to the request for an assessment of union strength and no other evidence of coercion Al though Eberhardy s remarks about Fass could be viewed as a threat of reprisal Fass had not been issued his most controversial warnings at this point The remarks were thus ambiguous and lacking in context In these circum stances I shall dismiss the allegations at paragraphs 9(c) and (d) of the complaint One day in mid July Toolroom Supervisor Bob Hoff man approached employee David Bessey and asked him if he had any problems Bessey said he did not and that he was just crabby Then Hoffman asked why the women referring to the women in the pressroom wanted the Union in the shop Bessey told him because they took our life insurance away our health and disabil ity insurance and machines are run improperly and noth ing is being done about it So they had to go outside for 730 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD help Hoffman then said I hope that you won t get in volved because of what has been happening to Dale Fess Bessey who knew that Fass was being hassled and had received at least one warning at the time said that Hoffman did not have to worry about this Bessey mentioned this conversation to Fass the next day Hoffman admitted that he asked why the women wanted the Union but denied telling Bessey not to get involved because of what happened to Fass I credit Bessey His testimony withstood strong cross examination and he impressed me as an honest witness He was also employed at the time he testified having been recalled about a month earlier Hoffman was in volved in several incidents with Fass and I found him not to be a reliable witness on those matters I do not believe he was any more credible in his testimony about the Bessey conversation Hoffman s remarks about not getting involved in the Union could reasonably be viewed as a threat that if he did retaliation and warnings such as were given to Fass would follow This is an unlawful threat violative of Sec tion 8(a)(1) of the Act Since this threat took place in the same conversation as an interrogation as to why the women wanted a union the threat provided a coercive context for the interrogation itself which I also find un lawful Sometime in late September shortly before the strike employee Justin Julian approached Dave Arseneau at the plant just outside the toolroom Julian asked how Arsen eau felt about the Union Arseneau said he was against it but did not want to discuss the matter Julian then asked Arseneau what would happen if the employees voted to strike Arseneau replied that the employees would lose their jobs just like the employees at the Hormel plant re ferring to a recent well publicized labor dispute in Min nesota Arseneau also said that the owner Robert Berard had enough money to close the doors The conversation lasted about 15 minutes The above is based on the credited testimony of Julian Arseneau related several different conversations with Julian one at Arseneau s house where he allegedly re fused to discuss unions a second in which Julian in formed him that he was going to strike and Arseneau told him You have to do what you have to do and a third in which Julian called Arseneau on the phone and asked if he could come back to work I do not credit Ar seneau s account which I found contrived Julian s testi mony on the Hormel matter was supported by his pre trial affidavit I credit Julian Arseneau s statement to Julian that the employees would lose their jobs if they struck was not an attempt to set forth the law on strike replacements The import of the statement was that Respondent would close the plant-a statement made on previous occasions to em ployees-and that it was Respondent who would take re tahatory action against the employees because they struck Such statement amount to an unlawful threat of reprisal The General Counsel successfully amended the com plaint to include an allegation that on 12 May 1987- during the trial in this case employee David Scolley overheard Supervisor Bill Wolff talking to Plant Manag er Dan Frei and Supervisor Mattos in which Wolff threatened to get rid of' nion supporters in violation of Section 8(a)(4) and (1) of the Act Scolley testified that at the plant at or about 4 30 p m he overheard Wolff say that they are going to get rid of all the bad people in there after this was all over with Any trouble makers Wolff then asked if Mattos had any trouble makers on his shift At this point Scolley left the area and heard no more of the conversation The three super visors denied that anything of the sort was said I cannot credit Scolley s testimony It is true that I did not find Mattos or Wolff particularly reliable witnesses However I found Scolley to be hesitant and unsure in his demeanor Moreover his testimony was lacking in context and because he overheard only part of the con versation it seemed ambiguous Accordingly I shall dis miss the allegations set forth in the amendment to the complaint At the 21 August bargaining session Respondent pro posed that the existing system of three warnings before discipline or discharge be changed to one warning The Union s chief negotiator Jim Tribble asked Respond ent s chief negotiator and attorney Neil Conway the reason for the change Conway said [w]e did it histon cally We have to run a tighter shop now We never before had to deal with a Union Now there is a Union we are going to have to enforce our rules on absentee ism tardiness and bad work type The proposal was not accepted The above is based on the testimony of Union Official Janeen La Monica who was corroborated by Union Offi cial Lynn Talbott Each took verbatim notes of this statement which supported their testimony Russ Uttech an employee member of the bargaining committee and president of the Union s Local 2505 testified to the same effect Conway testified that Respondent decided to propose the more stringent warning provision because the Union had in the prior bargaining session on 15 August with drawn its no strike and arbitration proposal Respondent countered on 21 August with a revised grievance arbitra tion clause as well as the one warning clause The one warning clause was a provision separate and apart from the grievance arbitration provision Conway testified that the statement he made to Tribble concerning the more stringent warning proposal was as follows [W]e are bargaining on a union contract that the company decid ed that it would tighten up on union discipline by the terms of the contract Conway took notes but his notes do not contain anything about this exchange with Trib ble Cassandra Westgate another attorney for Respondent who attended the bargaining session testified that when Tribble asked why Respondent was submitting the more stringent warning proposal Conway replied Well we have never negotiated a union contract before and this is our proposal She testified she did not recall Conway saying anything about tightening up on people West gate took notes of the meeting but concedes that there is nothing in her notes about Conway s remark NORTHERN WIRE CORP 731 I credit the version of La Monica Talbott and Uttech Their testimony was clearer more detailed and supported by notes of the bargaining session It was also mutually corroborative My impression was that Conway and Westgate were trying to put a gloss on the Conway response Significantly Conway s version differs from that of Westgate who could not recall Conway saying that Respondent would tighten up Conway admitted that he used those very words which corroborated the views of the other witnesses Indeed Conway s testimo ny is internally inconsistent In his first version of the statement he specifically referred to tightening up on union discipline (Emphasis added) These words used by an experienced lawyer on the witness stand belie any attempt to cloak the statement in terms of a bargaining position despite the reference to a union contract Conway later gave another version of his statement which left out the reference to union discipline or tight ening up and cast the statement more clearly in terms of a responsive bargaining position Although Conway may have had in his mind the notion of explaining bargaining positions for effect and he and Westgate certainly at tempted to cast their testimony in this light I do not be lieve that he made such representations to the union ne gotiators He told them that Respondent was tightening up because of the Union s presence as bargaining agent This statement including Conway s admitted reference to union discipline is remarkably close to similar state ments attributed to Respondents supervisors on the plant floor Accordingly I cannot credit Conway and West gate on this point Based on the credited testimony I find that Conway s remarks at the 21 August bargaining session amounted to a threat that Respondent intended to tighten up on disci plane because the employees had chosen to bargain col lectively through the Union An employer-particularly through its lawyer-should be careful when making statements of this sort not to engage in brinksmanship or make conscious overstatements he has reason to be lieve will mislead employees NLRB v Gissel Packing Co 395 U S 575 620 (1969) quoting from Wausau Steel Corp v NLRB 377 F 2d 369 372 (7th Cir 1967) Such statements are unlawful See Chambers Development Co 267 NLRB 611 (1983) cf Electri Flex Co v NLRB 570 F 2d 1327 1334 (7th Cir 1978) cert denied 439 U S 911 (1978) Contrary to Respondents position set forth in its brief Conway s remarks were not expressed or presented as a bargaining proposal I have not credited the testimo ny of Conway or Westgate to the extent that they sug gested as much Nor was there any credible evidence that the one warning proposal was a specific response to the Union s withdrawal of its no strike arbitration pro posal Respondent specifically answered that by a gnev ance arbitration proposal of its own Nothing in the cases cited by Respondent suggests that a statement that sug gests a discriminatory change in policy is permissible simply because it is made in a collective bargaining con text Employees were present when the Conway state ment was made Even if the asserted change had not taken place the statement itself would have a tendency to coerce for it is the objective impact of the statement on employees that is dispositive See NLRB v Gold Standard Enterprises 679 F 2d 673 676 (7th Cis 1982) However here the statement took on an even greater aura because similar statements were being made by su pervisors on the plant floor and discriminatory warnings were in fact being issued In these circumstances the cases cited by Respondent concerning other statements made in bargaining are distinguishable 3 D The Charges of Discrimination 1 Incidents involving Dale Fass Dale Fass was employed by Respondent since 1981 In late 1985 he was made toolroom supervisor and reported to Dave Arseneau Fass testified that while he was still a supervisor in early May 1985 Arseneau asked Fass how he felt about the union Fass said that he thought it was a good idea and backed the employees 100 percent Two weeks later Fass was demoted to a rank and file toolmak er with a reduction in pay He was replaced by Robert Hoffman The record is unclear when Fass stopped being a su pervisor Arseneau testified that it was the end of April Fass testified that it was in mid May Hoffman first said he took over in June then he said it was in April The record contains an employment history card that shows Fass took a 50 cent pay cut as of 31 March 1986 Arseneau denied having the above conversation with Fass He testified that Fass voluntarily took the demotion and pay out before the Union came on the scene as a result of his dissatisfaction with Arseneau s having issued Fass a written warning on 1 April for talking to his girl friend I do not credit Arseneau s denial that the conversation took place In this respect I found Fass to be a more reli able witness than Arseneau I cannot believe that Fass would have voluntarily taken the demotion and pay cut for the reason Arseneau suggested However I am not sure whether this conversation took place before or after Fass was demoted The evidence is too confusing for me to make a specific finding on the point Nevertheless the General Counsel withdraws the allegation of the com plaint which is based on this conversation because in her view Fass was a supervisor at the time Because I cannot satisfactorily determine whether Fass was a su pervisor at the time I shall dismiss paragraph 7(b) of the complaint At some point in the spring of 1986 Fass became active on behalf of the Union He distributed and collect ed authorization cards and spoke to other employees 3 In both Anderson s 161 NLRB 1470 1471 (1966) and Webb Pump & Supply Co 167 NLRB 224 226 (1967) the disputed statements were con sidered as evidence of whether the employer had failed to bargain in good faith an issue not involved here In Korn Industries v NLRB 389 F 2d 117 123-124 (4th Cir 1967) the court rejected the Boards finding that a statement by an employers attorney in bargaining that union bar gaining had never had any influence on wages was evidence of bad faith bargaining and an independent violation of Sec 8(a)(1) The Court noted that the statement was simply an isolated statement made in the heat of argument The statement here was not of that character It was made in the presence of employees and not in the heat of argument Moreover because of similar statements made on the plant floor and Respondents actual discriminatory conduct the statement was not isolated 732 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD about the Union After the election he distributed and wore union buttons and became a member of the Union s bargaining committee In early June Hoffman approached Fass at his work station and drew him aside for a conversation He told Fass that Respondent and particularly Dave Arseneau was getting tired of all these people running around on union activity and that Fass should watch himself be cause Respondent was going to crack down on em ployees Hoffman said that Respondent was going to tighten up its policies on discipline 4 Fass was absent on 18 June and he reported for work 1 1/2 hours late on 19 June When Fass came into work he was issued a written warning by Hoffman The reason stated on the written warning was excessive absentee ism and tardiness The warning also stated that subse quent violation will result in time off and or termina tion 5 Fass protested to Hoffman that two other employees were also late that day but they were not issued warn ings Hoffman admitted that the other two employees were 5 and 10 minutes late respectively and that he did not issue them warnings Fass also protested to Design and Engineening Manager James Eberhardy stating that the warning was issued because of his union activity The two exchanged words but the warning stood After attending the parties first bargaining session on 22 July as a member of the Unions bargaining team Fass reported to work Eberhardy approached Fass as he was helping an employee on a machine They talked a bit about the machine and then Eberhardy asked about the negotiations Fass said he could not discuss the nego tiations because Eberhardy was a supervisor Eberhardy then said that the people in the office were tired of the union activity and that Respondent would have to start cracking down and tightening discipline 6 On 23 July Fass was absent because he had to meet with his attorney Respondent admittedly knew that Fass had personal and marital problems and had granted him some time off for this purpose Fass called in about 11 am to tell an official of Respondent that he would be absent He also submitted a notation from the attorney explaining his absence The next day Fass received a written warning for ab senteeism and did not call in The warning reads The above is based on Fass straightforward testimony which I credit Not only is this statement similar to those attributed to other man agement officials by other witnesses but Hoffman s arbitrary issuance of the Fass Belant warnings demonstrates that he was in fact cracking down on Fass and renders suspect his testimony that these and other warnings against Fass were benign 5 Prior to this Fass had been issued two verbal warnings which were reduced to writing and placed in Fass file by Arseneau The first dated 1 April 1986 was for talking and the second dated 3 April 1986 was for absenteeism Actually Fass 2 April timecard shows that he was granted a vacation day for this absence 8 This is based on Fass credible testimony Not only is Fass account consistent with other statements made by management officials but Fass testimony about this particular incident withstood vigorous cross-exams nation I do not credit Eberhardy s denial I believe Eberhardy attemped to refute this testimony in part by pointing to a supervisors meeting- with Fass in attendance-wherein it was decided to enforce company rules to the letter He thus attempted to give a benign explanation for tightening up the rules on Fass I found Eberhardy s testimony on this point wholly unreliable Company policy states that if employee is not going to report for work they must call in before 9 00 a in Dale called in at 11 10 a m As a result Fass was suspended for 3 days without pay and told that subsequent viola tion will result in termination Fass protested the warning to no avail He testified that he had never heard of a rule that an employee had to call in about his absence before 9 a m He had never before seen or received a set of company rules on this or any other matter even when he was a supervisor Other employees corroborated Fass on this point At the next negotiating session on 25 July Union Offi cial and Chief Negotiator Jim Tribble asked Respond ent s negotiators whether Respondent had a set of rules They said Respondent did not Tribble then pulled out Fass warning and asked if there was no call in rule how Fass could get a warning for failing to call in before 9 a in The parties apparently exchanged views on this issue without resolving the matter On 2 September 1986 employee Jeff Belant ap proached Fass at Fass machine and asked him questions about a problem Belant was having on his machine Fass had some knowledge of the problem because of his prior experience and supervisory position Fass machine re mained running during the conversation Hoffman then approached the two and told them that he was issuing them warnings for talking Fass and Belant tried to ex plain what they were talking about but Hoffman would not listen Hoffman admitted that he did not hear or even ask the employees what they were talking about Fass credibly testified without contradiction that em ployees often came to him to ask him work related ques tions because of his experience and prior supervisory status He had even been told by his superiors to help out less experienced employees Belant testified that he often asked Fass work related questions on worktime and that he was never told about any prohibitions against talking The record shows that the 2 September verbal warn ings to Belant and Fass were reduced to writing The General Counsel alleges that the statements by Hoffman and Eberhardy to Fass about tighening up on discipline were violative of Section 8(a)(1) ° I agree The words used by these supervisors were delivered in the context of complaints about union activity and thus could reasonably be construed as threats that Respondent was tightening up its disciplinary procedures either to punish union adherents or to retaliate against employees for having chosen the Union to represent them Such statements are violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act The General Counsel also argues that the two warn ings issued to Fass in June and July including the 3 day suspension as well as the warnings issued to Fass and Belant in early September were discriminatorily motivat ed I agree ' In her brief the General Counsel does not rely on allegations set forth in par 9(b) of the complaint that Eberhardy made similar threats both before and after the election Fass testimony was not particularly clear on the issue of whether Eberhardy made such threats on other oc casions I shall dismiss these allegations NORTHERN WIRE CORP 733 Fass a known union activist and a member of the Unions bargaining team had been warned twice that Respondent was going to crack down on employees be cause of the Union Respondents chief negotiator repeat ed this theme during a negotiating session During this period Fass a former supervisor received three warn ings and a 3 day suspension Fass first written warnings was issued obstensibly be cause of excessive absenteeism and tardiness However Hoffman admitted that he did not even check Fass record on this score he simply noted that Fass had re ceived a previous verbal warning for absenteeism That verbal warning is of questionable validity because Fass was awarded a vacation day for that absence The second wntten warning ostensibly for failing to call in before 9 a m was issued only 1 day after Fass had at tended a negotiating session and been threatened by Eberhardy It was also issued for the violation of a rule that either did not exist or was not made known general ly to employees The third warning-accompanied by one issued to Belant-was absolutely unjustified because the two employees were talking about a work related subject and Hoffman did not even know or inquire about the subject matter of the conversation The arbitrary nature of this last warning issued while Fass was at his own machine answering a work related question from a fellow employee sheds light on the true motive for all the warnings They were issued because of Fass union activities Respondents explanations for the warnings do not withstand scrutiny I find that the explanations were pre texts and I also find that the warnings would not have been issued and the suspension not imposed but for Fass union activities Initially it is alleged that Respondent had a written procedure setting forth its policies on warnings A policy booklet-actually an undated four page typed docu ment-was introduced in evidence It sets forth rules such as three warnings being required before discharge call ins required before 9 a in and written warnings for being late three times in 1 week The evidence shows that the latter two rules were not generally enforced More importantly the evidence-credible testimony from several employees-shows that the policy booklet was not distributed generally to employees Furthermore Respondent did not provide the booklet when the Union asked for any written disciplinary policies during the int tial stages of bargaining and indeed took the position in a letter dated 23 June 1986 by Vice President Dwayne Pla mann that there is no current employee handbook In these circumstances I have serious reservations about the existence of any particular rules on warnings or disci pline At the very least this evidence provides a back drop within which to consider Respondents alleged jus tification for its warnings 8 Fass first warning for excessive absenteeism and tardi ness is not justified either by the record or Respondent s own policy First of all it is unclear what kind of ab 4In view of the overwhelming testimony to the contrary I do not accept the testimony from Respondents officials that the rules were dis tributed to employees generally sences Respondent meant to punish Respondent has a category on its employee attendance cards called unex cused absences Fass card showed no unexcused ab sences for 1986 before his first warning All of his 10 ab sences were classified either as vacation days or excused absences None of Respondents officials explained either the policy or Fass alleged dereliction with respect to ab sences Indeed one supervisor testified he had granted Fass some time off because of personal and marital prob lems In these circumstances I cannot accept Respond ent s attempt to justify the warning on the basis of Fass attendance record 9 Because Fass was late on the day in question Re spondent s reliance on this aspect of Fass record is more plausible However two other employees were late the very same day and did not receive warnings It is true that Fass was 1 1/2 hours late for which he was of course docked but Respondents stated reason for the warning was not the length of his tardiness on this day but his overall record However the evidence in this case shows that other employees were late much more often than Fass and did not receive warnings For exam pie by the time of Fass warning employee Mark Arsen eau had been late 16 times and employee Jean Hall had been late 19 times Fass was late 10 times but 8 of them were when he was a supervisor Significantly neither Hall nor Arseneau supported the strike Employee Dan Johnson had been late 31 times in 1986 before he re ceived only a verbal warning on 7 May Indeed Re spondent purportedly had a rule-honored more in its breach-which permitted written warnings only after 3 tardys in I week a situation that did not apply to Fass when he was issued his June warning At best Respond ent s policy with respect to warnings for tardiness was uneven and inconsistent Respondent admitted as much when it submitted the testimony of an official who di rected a change in policy in late 1986 or early 1987 to distinguish between tardiness of less than 2 1/2 minutes from that of more than 2 1/2 minutes In short Respondent has not rebutted the inference of discrimination in the issuance of Fass first written warn mg Nor can Respondent refute the discriminatory charac ter of Fass second warning The gravamen of this warn ing was as clearly stated both on the warning and by Hoffman Fass failure to call in before I 1 am in viola tion of company rules 10 The only problem here is that the rule was never made known to Fass or other em ployees Moreover there was no justification for a sus pension Respondent had a policy that no disciplinary action could be imposed without three prior warnings In this case Fass was given a verbal warning in April for 9 Respondent (Br 3) cites three verbal warnings that it alleges are sup portive of an even handed policy against absenteeism They show no such thing The verbal warning to Olsen states that he was spoken to about attendance and the fact that he smelled of alcohol The verbal warning to Bushar simply says attendance with no explanation The verbal warning to Lenard emphasized that he did not have a doctor s excuse for being absent In a comparable situation Fass was late and was given a written warning for overall absenteeism 10 Vice President Plamann also explained that this was the reason for the warning I 734 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD absenteeism and a written one in June for tardiness and absenteeism The April warning is of questionable validi ty because it was based on a vacation day and the June warning was issued discriminatorily Thus it is difficult to see how a 3 day suspension could be justified Finally the same evidence that cast doubt on Respondents en forcement of an antitardiness policy against Fass in June applies here to question its enforcement of such a policy against Fass in July Many others were tardy at least as often as Fass and were not hit with warnings or disci pline Accordingly Respondent has failed to rebut the evidence of discrimination in support of Fass second warning Finally Respondents effort to justify the Fass Belant warning is unavailing and certainly not enough to over ride the cumlative evidence that it like the others and in accordance with Respondents threats was discriminator ily motivated The evidence shows that employees often talked with each other for short periods during the workday and that there was no particular rule against this type of activity particularly where the conversation involved work related matters Even assuming that Fass had properly been given verbal warnings for talking both in April and the day before as Respondent contends there could be no justification for this particular warning issued on an occasion where two employees were talking about work related matters Hoffman neither overheard what Fass and Belant were talking about nor did he ask He precipitously issued verbal warnings with no .justifi cation In summary Respondent has not rebutted the evidence of discrimination or shown that the warnings and suspen sions would have been issued absent union concerns I find that Respondent discriminatorily issued warnings to and suspended Fass and warned Belant in furtherance of an attempt to tighten disciplinary procedures against em ployees because as several of its officials had indicated the Union had won representation rights and because Fass was a leading union spokesman I' 2 Incidents involving employee Jerald Coffey Jerry Coffey was head of maintenance under Dave Arseneau This was a rank and file position even though Coffey had some duty to assign work to employees Coffey was a known and vocal union supporter who worked with Fass and often talked to him about the status of the Union He was elected union steward after the strike ended He wore a union badge and prominent ly displayed union stickers all over his toolbox Coffey was often late Outside of one occasion early in his employment no management official spoke to him about his tardiness until after the election On or about 23 June 1986 Arseneau confronted him after he reported late for work and said We have got a union in here now and tardiness would not be tolerated Arseneau gave Coffey a verbal warning at this time Coffey s first warning of any kind i 2 On 29 September 1986 Coffey and another employee with whom he rode to work Brian Woellner arrived late for work Coffey double parked his car went inside punched in made some work assignments and went out side to repark his car As he was reparking his car he saw Jim Eberhardy-who was not his immediate super visor-parking his car at the same time Eberhardy came inside and checked Coffey s record for previous tardiness incidents and warnings Eberhardy consulted with Dan Frei and other officials and called Coffey into Frei s office to issue him a written warning Coffey protested that he was only 7 minutes late whereas Eberhardy was 17 minutes late Actually Coffey s timecard shows that he punched in at 7 10 a in which means one tenth of an hour or only 6 minutes late The warning was issued for being tardy on that day and noted the earlier verbal warning for tardiness issued on 23 June The warning stated that the next violation would result in a 3 day suspension without pay After he received his warning Coffey pasted it on his toolbox with Northern Wire I love you written across the comment section and a contract or strike union sticker on it Coffey was upset about the warning and he let everyone know about it Later that day Coffey met with Frei and Eberhardy again Either Frei or Eber hardy confirmed Coffey s protest that he had worked past quitting time on many occasions Frei stated that or dinarily he would have revoked the warning because of Coffey s extra work However he said that he would not do so because Coffey displayed [the warning] for every body to see in the shop 13 1 find that the 29 September warning issued to Coffey was discriminatorily motivated Respondents officials had threatened reprisals in disciplinary matters because of the Union and specific statements of this sort were made to Coffey Indeed Arseneau s statement to Coffey in June that tardiness would not be tolerated because of the Union s presence was an unlawful threat of reprisal in violation of Section 8(a)(1) Coffey was a known union adherent and a friend of Fass who had earlier been issued discriminatory warn ings As I have indicated in the discussion of the Fass warnings Respondents policy on tardiness warnings was far from consistent Respondents discrimination against Fass goes a long way toward explaining its conduct toward Coffey Moreover it is clear that Respondent was willing to rescind the Coffey warning but for his having advertised it as a badge of honor in connection Respondent s argument (Br 65) that Sec 10(b) of the Act bars some of the complaint allegations is without meet Respondent asserts that the Fass warnings and suspensions were not the subject of a specific charge until 6 months after his first warning However the first charge in this case was filed in October 1986 and the second in November 1986 both well within the 6 month statute of limitations Those charges included several other allegations of discriminatory warnings Fass first warnng was certainly closely related to these earlier charges See Eastern Maine Medical Center v NLRB 658 F 2d 1 6-7 fn 3 (1st Cir 1981) 2 Arseneau did not specifically deny this conversation He simply den ed generally that he ever had a conversation with Coffey in which the subject of the Union came up I credit Coffey s detailed and candid testimony on this point Coffey s testimony is also consistent with that of other witnesses who testified that management officials threatened to tighten up because of the Union 19 Coffey s testimony on this point was essentially corroborated by Eberhardy But where Coffey was straightforward in his testimony Eberhardy euphemistically stated that Respondent did not rescind the warning because we didn t feel that he was accepting our discipline NORTHERN WIRE CORP 735 with his support of the Union In these circumstances the General Counsel has shown that Respondents con duct toward Coffey was discnminatonly motivated Respondent has not shown that the warning would have been issued absent union concerns Respondent did not issue a warning to employee Brian Woellner who came in with Coffey and presumably was as late as he was on 29 September Eberhardy who was not even Coffey s immediate supervisor seemed to be looking for an opportunity to catch Coffey rather than enforcing an even handed policy addressed to business needs Before issuing the warning he checked Coffey s tardiness and warning record He then consulted other management officials The initial basis for the warning was apparently Coffey s tardiness on that day and a verbal warning for a prior offense When Coffey protested Eberhardy testi feed to a second flurry of activity to check Coffey s record and a second explanation namely that Coffey had been late three times in a 5 day penod in violation of a company rule Here again Respondent appeared to have decided first to discipline Coffey and then to un cover an after the fact rationale Nor is it clear whether the rule applies to three incidents in the same workweek or in any 5 day period Notwithstanding all of this Eber hardy testified that the warning would have been re scinded had Coffey accepted the warning Not only does this show shifting reasons to support the discipline but it shows that Respondent did not view the offense as a se rious one It only resented that Coffey trumpeted the event as an example of antiunion harassment The evi dence also shows that the three times late rule relied on was not generally known to employees or strictly en forced Employees ran up many incidents of tardiness including three consecutive violations without being warned Indeed Coffey s tardiness record particularly in March and April was terrible yet he was not issued a warning until after the Union came on the scene Re spondent simply cannot show an even handed policy on tardiness warnings In these circumstances I find that Respondent has not rebutted the evidence of discrimina tion in the issuance of the Coffey warning 3 The Thomaschefsky Schotz warnings On 6 August employees Terri Thomaschefsky and Charlene Schotz were given verbal warnings for stand ing in washroom talking on company time Actually they were not in a washroom but in the washup room where they were washing their safety glasses before starting work Both were open union activities They were members of the union organizing committee and later the Union s bargaining team They had punched in and shortly before the 7 a in starting time went into the washup room to wash their safety glasses and prepare for work At this point Supervisor Bill Wolff was dis tributing job cards to his employees Often the job card assignments are not fully completed until several minutes after 7 am Thomaschefsky was in the washup room when Schotz came in Employee Marilyn Seidlitz was also present in the room Thomaschefsky asked Schotz why another employee had quit the day before Schotz said she did not know This exchange took about a minute Wolff burst into the room and told Thomaschefsky and Schotz that they should not be talking about union matters and said that they were both going to receive a verbal warn ing Wolff saw Seidlttz but did not include her in the warning At that point Seidlitz had not been active on behalf of the Union although she later joined the strike Schotz left the washup room at 3 minutes after 7 a in Later that day or the next Thomaschefsky and Schotz protested the warning that was treated seriously by them and was the subject of much discussion among employ ees both at work and at subsequent union meetings The employees protested the warnings to Dan Frei They said that they had followed a similar practice in the past of washing their safety glasses before beginning work even though the task might be completed a few minutes after 7 am and even though there was talking in the washup room I find that such practices were common at the plant Indeed Seidlitz testified that she was shocked that Thomaschefsky and Schotz received warning because they were not doing anything that we have never done before Frei responded that worktime began at 7 a in and that Respondents rules justified the warning Frei did not produce the particular rule and the record does not reveal any specific rule outlawing Schotz and Thomas chefsky s conduct which in any event was common practice Thomaschefsky expressed her view to manage ment officials that the warnings were issued because of the Union s presence on the scene At union meetings the warnings were viewed by employees as examples of Re spondent tightening up on employees after the Union became bargaining representative 14 Based on the credited testimony set forth above it is obvious that the 6 August warnings were issued for a discriminatory reason Wolffs statement clearly indicated that he was concerned about the union business he thought was being discussed by leading union activists The suggestion that Wolff was concerned about a 2 or 3 minute delay in starting work or about talking in the washup room is absurd The employees were washing their safety glasses Such a short delay accompanied by a brief conversation while performing a work related func tion was common The evidence shows that employees do not start work exactly on time One of Respondent s employee witnesses testified that it takes at least 5 min utes after 7 o clock for employees to complete certain preliminaries and actually start work A third person who was in the washup room at the time was not given * The above is based on the detailed and composite testimony of Tho maschefsky Schotz and Seidlitz Wolff denied that he said anything about union business or union talk I do not credit Wolff The three em ployee witnesses were reliable and mutually corroborative Much of Wolff's testimony is implausible For example he denied knowing that Thomaschefsky and Schotz were active union supporters However the record shows that they not only met with management representatives as members of the organizing committee but also as members of the bargain mg team Supervisors had periodic meetings among themselves and would obviously have known about Schotz and Thomaschefsky Indeed even under his version of the facts Wolff entered the washup room only after another employee yelled out that Thomaschefsky and Schotz were conducting union business in the washup room I also reject Wolff's denial that he saw Seidlitz she credibly testified that he made eye con tact with her 736 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD a warning In view of other evidence that Respondent intended to tighten up on discipline Respondent s warnings in this situation would not have been issued but for the Union s presence as bargaining agent and the role of Thomaschefsky and Schotz as union spokesmen Re spondent s conduct thus clearly violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act 15 4 The alleged discriminatory discharges of Rampart and Hyronemus The General Counsel alleges that Respondent discri minatonly terminated probationary employees Steve Hyronemus and Dan Rampart on 26 September 1986 Respondent alleges that they were terminated for cause The relevant facts are as follows Steve Hyronemus started working for Respondent on 4 August 1986 He was hired as a tow motor driver on the second shift under Supervisor Mattos He was re lieved of his tow motor driving duties after about 10 days He thereafter worked as a supplier in the press de partment His job was to keep the operators supplied with parts Hyronemus testified about engaging in some limited union activity I found this testimony somewhat exagger ated and unreliable For example he testified that he signed a union card a day or two after he started work However no card signed by Hyronemus was introduced in evidence He also testified after some prompting that shortly before being transferred from the tow+motor job Mattos overheard him express his support for the Union and told him not to believe everything he heard He testified that Mattos thereafter acted differently to wards him He further testified that Mattos overheard him express his desire to attend a union meeting in Sep tember He did not attend that or an other union meet ing Nevertheless according to Hyronemus the next day he told fellow employees he was going to support the Union and Mattos overheard him I have grave reserva tions about the reliability of this testimony because even if accepted it does not show much union activity or spe cific union animus directed towards him On 25 September Hyronemus wore a contract or strike badge for the first time The next day still within his probationary period he was terminated According to Hyronemus testimony on direct exami nation he was never criticized for his work I do not accept this testimony On cross examination after being confronted with his pretrial affidavit he admitted that at some point near the end of his employment Mattos started to crab at him In addition he admitted that several press operators complained about his work Indeed the evidence is overwhelming that he was not doing well Hyronemus was not given the 25 cent wage is Respondents citation of verbal warnings to justify the Thomas chefsky Schotz warnings does not show an evenhanded policy of issuing warnings in comparable situations No details were provided but on their face the warnings refer to leaving a machine unattended standing around and not working lack of work unsafe procedures and smart mouthing other employees These are not comparable to the situation involved here where the supervisor specifically mentioned union business and the employees were performing a work related function which did not interrupt their work at all increase he was promised after 30 days of employment Supervisors Wolff and Mattos testified that they did indeed talk to Hyronemus about his work They com plained that he should work faster and not stand around Several employees testified that Hyronemus was slow and that they complained about his work Mattos and Frei testified that Hyronemus was terminated because of his poor work performance Dan Rampart began his employment with Respondent on 31 July 1986 He began work in the automatics de partment After about 4 or 5 weeks he was transferred to the press department where his job was to supply parts to the press operators He worked on the first shift Rampart was transferred to the press department because he could not handle his job in the automatics depart ment He did not get the 25 cent raise he was promised after 30 days presumably because of Respondents as sessment that he was not adequately performing his job He worked in the press department for about 2 weeks before he was terminated for poor performance Some time during his first week in the press department he was criticized by his supervisor Bill Wolff for not supplying the press operators adequately or fast enough Thereaf ter he was criticized by the press operators themselves Ramparts union activity began with his attendance at the 17 September union meeting during which he signed a union card The next day he wore a contract or strike button which was also worn by about 70 percent of the employees He was terminated on 26 September while he was still within his 60 day probationary period The above is based on Ramparts testimony Respond ent submitted the testimony of Supervisor Wolff to show that employees did indeed complain about Rampart s work and that Wolff warned him about it Wolff and Frei testified that Rampart was terminated for his poor work performance I do not believe the General Counsel has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent fired Hyronemus and Rampart for their union activities They were probationary employees who had started their em ployment after the Union won the election They were not active supporters of the Union Hyronemus attended no union meetings and Rampart attended only one They wore contract or strike buttons on the last few days of their employment but so did most of the other employ ees in the plant There was no union animus directed toward Rampart and outside of Hyronemus question able testimony about Mattos it is doubtful that anyone even cared about his position on the Union There was really no evidence that Respondent focused on these two employees for retaliation because as the General Coun sel contends they expressed support for the Union or the strike In contrast both had been denied initial wage in creases that were ordinarily given to employees after 30 days of employment Both were repeatedly criticized for their work as supply personnel They were within their probationary period when they were terminated Re spondent has shown that it did utilize the probationary period to fire employees who were not living up to ex pectations These employees clearly were not Rampart NORTHERN WIRE CORP 737 had been transferred from another job for poor perform ance even before he engaged in any union activity and just 2 weeks before his termination Hyronemus was re moved from his tow motor operators job after only 10 days because of his poor performance on that job In short I do not believe that the General Counsel has shown that a reason for the terminations was the union activities of Rampart and Hyronemus However even if that showing were made as an initial matter I find that Respondent would have terminated these employees even in the absence of union considerations I shall there fore dismiss these allegations of the complaint E The Alleged Unfair Labor Practice Strike The striking employees made an unconditional offer to return to work on 4 December 1986 Respondent did not immediately reinstate the employees An issue in this case is whether the strike which began on 8 October was caused in whole or in part by Respondents unfair labor practices as the General Counsel contends If so the strike is an unfair labor practice strike and the em ployees are entitled to immediate reinstate even though replacements have been hired Mastro Plastics Corp v NLRB 350 U S 270 278 (1956) If however the strike was solely an economic strike as Respondent contends the employees are entitled to their jobs only as vacancies apse or when strike replacements leave Laidlaw Corp 171 NLRB 1366 1369 (1968) enfd 414 F 2d 99 (7th Cir 1969) cert denied 397 U S 920 (1970) The relevant facts on the issue are as follows The Fass Coffey and Thomaschefsky Schotz warnings were discussed among employees and at union meetings At one union meeting Zerbe brought up the statement by Mattos that he could be fired for attending the meeting He was told that this was an unfair labor practice Other incidents were also discussed including some which were not alleged as unfair labor practices in the com plaint and others such as the Hyronemus Rampart term[ nations which I have dismissed as not being unfair labor practices Obviously in these meetings the employees also discussed the progress of negotiations and the pros pects for an agreement Fass suspension was specifically mentioned at a bar gaining session where Tribble commented that Fass was suspended for violating a rule that did not exist Janeen La Monica s notes of this meeting read as follows Jim sees a pattern we go to the Labor Board At the 3 October bargaining session Tribble told Re spondent s officials that Respondent s last proposal was not acceptable He also said that laws continue to be violated and that Respondent would be looking at a dif ferent kind of strike an unfair labor practice strike This is based on La Monica s testimony which I credit 16 16 La Monica s testimony was essentially supported by her notes Al though La Monica s notes did not specifically refer to an unfair labor practice strike I find it likely that this specific reference was made or clearly implied Other notes including those of Respondents witnesses confirm that Tribble mentioned Respondents violations of law and a dif ferent kind of strike Respondents argument that Tribble s reference to a different kind of stoke meant only one without notice and not an unfair labor practice strike is not persuasive Although Tribble may have men On 6 October two meetings were held one for each shift in which the employees voted to strike The meet ings were virtually identical in content Jim Tribble chaired the meetings He told the employees that there was no movement at the last bargaining session Then he went through the contract proposals He mentioned that job posting grievance arbitration and economic issues were still open He also spoke about the unfair warnings and the harassment He noted that at least half of the bargaining committee members had been disciplined and said that Lynn Talbott would later speak to this issue He concluded by stating It is time to think strike put an end to the harassment and to get a contract Tribble then asked for questions There were none and he turned the meeting over to Talbott Talbott spoke from a prepared text about alleged unfair labor practices She spoke of layoffs the firing of Hyronemus and Rampart and the continual harass ment of bargaining committee members She specifically mentioned the warnings of Fass Thomaschefsky Schotz Kathy Becker Reichelt Sandy Sheirier Sylvia Bavido and Zerbe 17 She also mentioned Fass suspension and the threats of plant closure According to her prepared text she said that the constant foot dragging at negotia tions is a calculated effort to weaken and break the Union by disciplining and discharging union supporters one by one She also said Even if the Company had come up with a $100 wage increase at negotiations I doubt that many of you would be here to enjoy it I don t know how long we re going to take these concentration camp conditions at work Certainly no management is going to respect workers to sit back and allow their rights to be habitually violat ed Talbott then described the Union s strike benefits to employees Talbott thereafter asked for comments and questions Thomaschefsky Fass and Becker spoke about their warnings Other employees agreed that these warn ings amounted to harassment One employee asked if the employees could be fired if they went on strike Talbott responded that they could not Her uncontradicted testimony is as follows I informed them that the-all of the incidents which I had mentioned earlier the warnings the suspen sions terminations that I believed that they were unfair labor practice charges That our Union would file unfair labor practice charges against the tioned a strike without notice a term used in some of the notes I do not think that in context Tribble meant anything different from an unfair labor practice strike He certainly did not mean that a strike without notice was a strike that was not an unfair labor practice strike He was after all serving notice of a possible strike at that very meeting and he later held off employees for 1 day when they wanted to strike immediate ly What is clear is that he mentioned a possible strike in the same breath as Respondents law violations That he was referring to an unfair labor practice strike is consistent also with his subsequent statements and con duct i r As indicated some of these warnings were not found to be unfair labor practices 738 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Company That the National Labor Relations Board would conduct an investigation I had every reason to believe that the Labor Board would determine that we would be on an unfair labor practice strike And that if that were the case the Company could not permanently get rid of the striking employees I also stated that based on my experience with the Union that this Company would make every effort to hire replacements and that the way we make sure that we don t have the worry of being fired or people taking our jobs is that we try to convince anyone who wanted to cross our picket line that they should join the Union Talbott further testified that there were no questions about the issues in negotiations but she also testified that there was a question about whether the Union would continue bargaining during the strike She said that We would make every effort to settle the strike bargain meet with the Company any time and place that we had no desire to carry on the strike forever A strike vote was then taken by a show of hands and the employees in an almost unanimous vote agreed to strike There was some suggestion for an immediate strike but union officials stated that there had to be some preparation before striking The strike began 2 days later 18 One of the leaflets passed out by the picketers during the strike criticized Respondent for laying off employees and harassing them into quitting because of wage cuts and demotions It also specifically criticized the firing of Hyronemus The leaflet also states that Our strike is not about money It is about injustices job security and unfair labor practices and asks the public to contact the owner Robert Berard and urge him to settle with us and end the strike The Union also wrote a letter to other union repre sentatives in which it notified them of the reasons for the strike The letter mentioned certain union proposals such as seniority rights reinstatement of employees fired for union activities union security and checkoff and a 2 year contract The letter also referred to other issues explained in the enclosed flyer referring to the above leaflet But the letter continued the real issue is wheth er or not the employees will have union representation and a first contract The letter accused the owner Robert Berard of attempting to bust the union A strike is an unfair labor practice strike if it is caused in whole or in part by an employers unfair labor prac tices GEM Urethane Corp 284 NLRB 1349 1352 fn 13 (1987) AMF Inc 228 NLRB 1406 1417-1418 (1977) enfd 593 F 2d 972 (10th Cir 1979) Brooks Inc 228 NLRB 1365 1367 (1977) enfd in relevant part 593 F 2d 936 (10th Cir 1979) This is so even if there are other causes for the strike See AMF Inc supra Larand Lei sureties Inc 213 NLRB 197 fn 4 (1974) enfd 523 F 2d 814 (6th Cir 1975) and Kellwood Co 178 NLRB 20 40- is The statement about what occurred at the strike vote meetings is based on the uncontradicted testimony of La Monica and Talbott as sup- ported also by their notes 41 (1969) enfd as modified 434 F 2d 1069 (8th Cir 1970) As the Board stated in AMF Inc supra at 1418 It is inherent in most instances of multiple causation that not every last causative factor alone would have provoked the aggregate result It is equally in herent that withdrawal of one of the causative forces after the orchestrated momentum of the combined elements has been achieved does not nec essarily lessen the momentum Although the strike here was in part to obtain an agreement I also find that the strike was caused in part by Respondents unfair labor practices There is no doubt that the employees were very concerned about what they perceived as harassment or disciplinary action against union leaders and others because of the onset of the Union The employees discussed the warnings at meetings and their concern was fueled by specific threats by management officials of Respondent The Fass sus pension was specifically discussed at a bargaining session The discriminatory warnings continued through 29 Sep tember the date of the Coffey warning Three days later at the last bargaining session Union Chief Negotiator Jim Tribble complained about Respondents labor law violations and threatened a strike On 6 October 3 days later the employees met and voted to strike At the strike vote meeting-indeed immediately before the strike vote-the employees were read a detailed list of Respondents unfair labor practices and specifically dis cussed Respondents misconduct Significantly Union Official Lynn Talbott stated that since the conduct about which the employees complained amounted to unfair labor practices she believed that the employees would have greater job protection when they struck Thus as in Larand Leisurelies supra 213 NLRB at 198 the em ployees had before them and were influenced by the [Re spondent s] unfair and unlawful practices at the time they voted to strike Moreover leaflets passed out by picket ers during the strike specifically said that the strike was not about money but about injustices job security and unfair labor practices Accordingly even though there was evidence that strike was undertaken in part to obtain an agreement I find that it was also to protest the Respondents unfair labor practices Although some of the incidents detailed and com plained about were not found to be unfair labor prac tices those which resulted in unfair labor practice find ings were viewed seriously Moreover they were inti mately connected with the bargaining process The Fass Thomaschefsky Schotz and Coffey warnings were spe cifically discussed The expressed concern over harass ment was particularly acute because Fass Thomas chefsky and Schotz were bargaining committee mem bers The perceived harassment was an issue that was raised at the bargaining table Fass suspension was dis cussed in the context of Respondents reliance on a non existent rule Later union officials and employee mem bers of the bargaining team questioned Respondents pro posal which permitted discipline after only one warning and they were met by another threat that discipline would be tightened This was an open issue at the time NORTHERN WIRE CORP 739 of the strike Indeed at the strike vote meeting there were more questions about the perceived harassment than the terms of the agreement At one point Talbott said that even if Respondent came up with a $1 wage in crease she doubted that many of the employees would be here to enjoy it Thus concern over the unfair labor practices was difficult to separate from con cern over the bargaining process At the very least the employees by striking meant in part to protest against Respondents unfair labor practices Respondent urges in effect that the strike was solely to obtain an agreement and therefore an economic strike This contention flies in the face of the evidence Respondent contends that it was the motive of the union officials to strike solely for contractual union secu my provisions and that this motive-not that of employ ees who voted to strike-is what should be assessed First of all the Board does not necessarily distinguish be tween the motive of union officials and that of employ ees in assessing the causes for a strike The question is essentially one of fact and the motive of both is relevant See Brooks Inc supra 228 NLRB at 1367 fn 12 In this case the union officials obviously deferred to the employees because they decided to hold a strike vote of employees The fact that some employees wanted to strike immediately but were put off for 1 day by union leaders does not as Respondent contends show that the union officials and not the employees were calling the shots The short delay was based on the need to organize the strike Significantly it was the employees who put their jobs on the line by voting to strike 19 Secondly in this case there is no evidence that the motives of union officials and employees were anything but consistent The union officials documented Respond ent s unfair labor practices in response to employee com plaints and the employees voted immediately after being presented with them The only questions at the meeting dealt with Respondents alleged improprieties Tribble told Respondents bargaining officials at the 3 October meeting that laws continued to be violated and that Re spondent would be faced with a different kind of strike an obvious reference to the alleged violations he referred to Talbott laid out a litany of unfair labor practices just before the strike vote and the Union wrote a leaflet and letter specifically referring to unfair labor practices and union bust[ing] Thus there could hardly be more 9 Respondent s characterization of the evidence in this case as a belat ed attempt by employees and union officials to obtain the greater rein statement rights of sinkers does not advance the factfinding process I have considered the self interest of both prounion and procompany wit nesses in this case Respondent has just as great an interest in having the strike declared an economic strike as the Union has in declaring it an unfair labor practice stoke However it is not unusual that employees who put their jobs on the line might be more likely to strike if they be lieve they have the protection of unfair labor practice sinkers Here Tal bolt specifically told employees that in her view the incidents that they complained about were unfair labor practices and that they would thus have greater protection if they struck When employees vote to strike after such considerations have been ventilated the parties must accept the risk of litigation whether the incidents relied on rose to the level of unfair labor practices and whether they were a causative factor in the strike compatibility between the views of union officials and the employees 20 Nor is this conclusion altered by Respondents reliance on Conway s testimony of three off the record conversa tions he allegedly had with Tribble during negotiations which Respondent characterizes as an effort by Tribble to get a union security clause Two of these conversa tions occurred before the strike vote meeting and would not therefore have significant persuasive force However even the third one which allegedly occurred after the strike began does not support Respondents position Ac cording to Conway whose testimony I have rejected on another point Tribble said that he was interested in re placing the employees which the company had hired This sounds like Conway s euphemism for strike replace ments and not like the language Tribble would have used More to Respondents point Tribble also said ac cording to Conway that he wanted to have a modified union shop and check off Even if I accepted Conway s testimony Tribble did not say that the only reason for the strike was to obtain a union security clause or a con tract He did not disavow the unfair labor practice strike object simply by not saying anything about it in this off the record conversation Accordingly I find that Tribble did not say anything to Conway about the character of the strike that would contradict the overwhelming evi dence that it was caused in part by Respondents unfair labor practices See AMF Inc 228 NLRB at 1418 in which an even stronger statement by a union official was not found to override the finding that the strike was caused in part by unfair labor practices Respondent also contends that the warnings and other unfair labor practices here were remote in time from the initiation of the strike and could not have caused the strike Many of the cases cited by Respondent that find no unfair labor practice causation mention such a timelag as the prime factor against finding such causation But here the warnings and threats were ongoing incidents perceived as a campaign of harassment against union leaders particularly members of the bargaining team They were viewed seriously by the employees and spe cifically discussed immediately before the strike vote Moreover the specific incidents occurred throughout the previous few months and were not attenuated in time from the date of the strike Fass last warning was on 2 September about a month before the strike vote Cof 20 Respondent also contends that Tribble s statement at the 3 October bargaining session threatened a strike only if Respondent continued violating the Act Actually this exchange emphasizes that the strike that followed was viewed as an unfair labor practice strike However Re spondent argues that this statement means that Tribble made such a strike contingent on whether Respondent continued to violate the Act and be cause no further violations occurred the strike could not have been an unfair labor practice strike This contention is too legalistic and stretches credulity First of all Respondents argument is based primarily on bar gaining notes The notes of the more reliable witnesses-La Monica and Talbott-do not contain the word if However even if that word was used I find Respondents argument implausible Respondent did not offer any consideration for the alleged condition that a strike would not occur if no further violations were committed and Tribble could not bind the employees who later voted to strike Indeed Tribble obviously did not think himself bound because he submitted the matter to an employee strike vote and he subsequently took the view that the strike was an unfair labor practice strike 740 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD fey s last warning was on 29 September about a week before Both employees were at risk for more serious dis cipline possibly discharge if Respondents discrimmato ry conduct continued In these circumstances I do not consider the unfair labor practices in this case at all remote in time Respondent also contends that some of the unfair labor practice charges were not filed until after the strike began and therefore the charges were an afterthought Actually the first charge was signed by Lynn Talbott on 8 October the first day of the strike and filed with the Board s Regional Office on 14 October That charge spe cifically listed the discriminatory warnings against Tho maschefsky Sholtz and Coffey along with other allega tions It is true that the Fass charges were filed after the strike began It is also true that a factor to be considered in determining causation is whether charges were filed contemporaneously I have considered this point But here the Fass warnings were of a piece with the contem poraneously filed charges Moreover all the unfair labor practices found here regardless of when the charges were filed actually occurred before the strike and most-certainly the warnings-were specifically dis cussed at the strike vote meeting Indeed one Fass warn ing was discussed at a bargaining session before the strike In view of this evidence I do not believe that the failure to specifically file some charges until after the strike rebuts the evidence that the Fass warnings as well as the other unfair labor practices found caused the strike To the extent that Respondents argument is based on a contention that the Fass incidents did not happen or that they did not influence employees I consider this a credibility argument In this respect Respondent made an offer of proof that certain allegations under investigation were going to be dismissed but new evidence was subse quently uncovered and they were eventually included in the complaint Investigatory inquiries of this sort are not ordinarily admissible See Redway Carriers 274 NLRB 1359 1371 (1985) However even if I considered Re spondent s proffer it would not affect my credibility de terminations which are based in substantial part on the demeanor of the witnesses Respondents citation of Bur hngton Homes 246 NLRB 1029 (1979) is inapposite as the administrative law judge found no unfair labor prac tices based on his failure to credit any of the General Counsels witnesses The Board reversed the administra tive law judge in part but agreed that the strike was purely economic in nature (Id at 1032) Unlike in this case the unfair labor practices found by the Board in Burlington Homes occurred after the strike began Respondent cites numerous cases in its brief and reply brief in support of its position I have read them all I find that they are distinguishable In some the unfair labor practices were not as extensive as those here or they were remote in time In others the unfair labor practices were not raised at strike vote or other meetings or in union leaflets In still others the employees con cerns were not as great or the unfair labor practices were not discussed in as specific detail as they were here There are many factors that weigh on the causation question The question is basically a factual one and each case is different In this case the factors pointing to unfair labor practices as being partially responsible for the strike are stronger than those pointing to another reason as the sole reason for the stake However I will discuss one case cited by Respondent because it comes from the circuit in which this case arose That case NLRB v Colonial Haven Nursing Home 542 F 2d 691 (7th Cir 1976) is distinguishable from this case In Colonial Haven the court reversed the Board s determination that a strike called 3 days after a Board decision dismissing an election petition was an unfair labor practice stake The Board had reversed an admin istrative law judge s decision based in part on his credi bility determinations that the strike was for recognition indeed an unlawful strike for recognition rather than a protest against unfair labor practices The court in agreement with the judge noted that two of the unfair labor practices took place after the employees decided to stake and the others relatively minor incidents of 8(a)(1) misconduct took place well before the decision to strike Moreover the court approved the judge s credibility de termination which rejected the testimony by union offi cials and employees that unfair labor practices caused the strike because these references were not detailed or spe cific Thus the court found that substantial evidence did not support the Board s reversal of its administrative law judge Here in contrast the unfair labor practices were sen ous and involved actual incidents of discrimination as well as 8(a)(1) violations They were viewed seriously by employees who considered them part of a pattern of har assment which continued up to the date of the strike These incidents occurred before and were discussed in specific detail at the strike vote meeting that preceded the strike Finally the credited testimony shows that a reason for the strike was those very unfair labor prac tices Finally Respondent argues that even if the evidence shows the strike was caused in part by its unfair labor practices it should be able to show that the employees would have struck even in the absence of unfair labor practices In support of this view-on which it admitted ly would have the burden of proof-Respondent cites the Board s Wright Line doctrine governing discrimina tion charges (251 NLRB 1083 (1980)) Assuming that this is a useful approach I find that Respondent has not made such a showing in this case It has not been able to disentangle the consequences of its own wrongdoing See NLRB v Remington Rand 94 F 2d 862 872 (2d Cir 1938) cert denied 304 U S 576 (1939) and AMF Inc supra 228 NLRB at 1418 21 The evidence in this case clearly shows that the strike was prompted in part by Respondents unfair labor practices Respondent does not prove the opposite by showing that the employees strike did not secure a remedy for the unfair labor practices The employees meant to protest the unfair labor prac 21 Certainly Respondent here would have a more difficult burden than a respondent attempting to rebut a prima facie case of discrimination In the latter situation a respondent is attempting to sort out the conse quences of its own motives here it is attempting to sort out the conse quences of its unfair labor practices from the motives of others NORTHERN WIRE CORP 741 tices and they did That they lost the strike does not mean that their original intent was not to protest against unfair labor practices Indeed Respondents view would negate even a contractual object because in losing the strike the employees had to accept Respondents last offer If on the other hand Respondent had offered ex actly what the Union asked for in negotiations and the employees had ended the strike without having resolved their concerns about harassment Respondent might be in a stronger position However in this case Respondent did not do so Likewise had Respondent remedied or of fered to remedy the unfair labor practices or otherwise alleviated the employees concern over harassment and the strike nevertheless continued Respondent might be able to show that these concerns were no longer valid Here again Respondent did not do so In short after considering all the evidence I am unable to conclude that Respondent has shown that the strike would have occurred even in the absence of its unfair labor practices CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 By threatening reprisals including discharge disci pline and plant closure in order to discourage union ac tivity by interrogating employees concerning their union activity and that of others and by threatening to tighten up its disciplinary procedure to discourage union activi ty Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 2 By issuing warnings against disciplining and sus pending employees in order to discourage union activi ties Respondent discriminated against employees in vio lation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act 3 The strike which began on 8 October 1986 and ended on 4 December 1986 was caused in part by the unfair labor practices set forth above and was therefore an unfair labor practice strike from its inception 4 By failing immediately to terminate striking employ ees on their unconditional offer to return to work on 4 December 1986 Respondent further violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act 5 The above violations constitute unfair labor prac tires within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act 6 Respondent has not otherwise violated the Act THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act Having found that the strike by Respondents employ ees which began on 8 October 1986 was caused in part by Respondents unfair labor practices and having found that Respondent unlawfully failed to reinstate the strik ing employees on their unconditional offer to return to work I shall recommend that Respondent reinstate all of its employees who participated in the strike and who made an unconditional offer to return on 4 December 1986 to their former positions or if such positions no longer exist to substantially equivalent positions without impairment of their seniority and other rights and privi leges dismissing if necessary any persons hired as re placements Respondent shall make the striking employ ees whole for any loss of earnings they may have suf fered by reason of Respondents refusal if any to rein state them by payment to each of them a sum of money equal to that which they normally would have earned during the period from 5 days after the date on which they applied for reinstatement to the date of Respond ent s offer of reinstatement Backpay shall be computed on the basis of calendar quarters in accordance with the method prescribed in F W Woolworth Co 90 NLRB 289 (1950) Interest is to be computed in the manner pre scribed in New Horizons for the Retarded 283 NLRB 1173 (1987) 22 On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record I issue the following recommend ed23 ORDER The Respondent Northern Wire Corporation Merrill Wisconsin its officers agents successors and assigns shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Threatening employees with reprisals including discharge discipline and plant closure in order to dis courage union activity (b) Interrogating employees concerning their union ac tivity or those of other employees (c) Threatening to tighten up its disciplinary procedure in order to discourage union activity (d) Issuing warnings suspending or otherwise disci piing employees in order to discourage union activity (e) In any like or related manner interfering with re straining or coercing employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights 2 Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Remove from its record and files any notations dealing with the warnings discipline and suspension of employees found to have been discriminated against here and notify them in writing that this has been done and that evidence of such unlawful conduct will not be used in future personnel actions (b) Make employee Dale Fass whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered from his unlawful 3 day sus pension (c) Offer immediate and full reinstatement to those em ployees who participated in the strike of 8 October 1986 and who unconditionally applied for reinstatement on 4 December 1986 to their former positions or if those po sitions no longer exist to substantially equivalent posi tions if jobs are available without prejudice to their se 22 In accordance with New Horizons interest on and after I January 1987 shall be computed at the short term Federal rate for the under payment of taxes as set out in the 1987 amendment to 26 U S C § 6621 Interest on amounts accrued prior to 1 January 1987 shall be computed in accordance with Florida Steel Corp 231 NLRB 651 (1977) 23 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board s Rules and Regulations the findings conclusions and recommended Order shall as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all put poses 742 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD niority and other rights and privileges dismissing if nec essary any persons hired as strike replacements (d) Make whole these striking employees for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of Re spondent s refusal to reinstate them in accordance with the terms of this Order in the manner set forth in the remedy section of this decision (e) Preserve and on request make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying all payroll records social security payment records time cards personnel records and reports and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order (f) Post at its Merrill Wisconsin plant copies of the at tached notice marked Appendix 24 Copies of the notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 30 after being signed by the Respondents au thorized representative shall be posted by the Respond ent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 con secutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted Rea sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered defaced or covered by any other material (g) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 28 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re spondent has taken to comply IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dis missed as to all allegations not found to be violative of the Act 2 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals the words in the notice reading Posted by Order of the Nation al 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 To organize To form join or assist any union To bargain collectively through representatives of their own choice To act together for other mutual aid or protec tion To choose not to engage in any of these protect ed concerted activities WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with re strains or coerces employees with respect to these rights WE WILL NOT threaten employees with reprisals in cluding discharge discipline and plant closure in order to discourage union activity WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning their union activities or those of other employees WE WILL NOT threaten to tighten up our disciplinary procedure in order to discourage union activity WE WILL NOT issue warnings suspend or otherwise discipline employees in order to discourage union active ty WE WILL remove from our records and files any refer ence to unlawfully found warnings discipline and sus pension WE WILL make employee Dale Fass whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered from this unlawful sus pension WE WILL offer immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions or if such positions no longer exist to substantially equivalent positions if jobs are available without prejudice to their seniority and other rights to all our striking employees who sought rein statement on December 4 1986 and who have not yet been reinstated WE WILL make whole any striking employees who made application for reinstatement on December 4 1986 for any loss of pay they may have suffered because of our failure to immediately reinstate them NORTHERN WIRE CORPORATION The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or dered us to post and abide by this notice The Act gives all employees these rights